Barriers and Enablers to Adopting Open Science in Low-Resource Research Environments

Through open access to data, papers, and methodologies, Open Science is a global movement that encourages transparency, accessibility, and cooperation in research. Although technology speeds up invention and discovery, adoption in low-resource environments is hampered by issues like inadequate digital infrastructure, a lack of financing, stringent regulations, and low awareness. Unreliable internet, a dearth of repositories, expensive publishing, and strict laws that forbid data sharing are some of the obstacles.
International partnerships, outside funding, open-access platforms, preprint repositories, and capacity-building initiatives that offer tools, know-how, and awareness are examples of enablers. Researchers in resource-constrained environments might increase their visibility and engage more fully in international scientific conversation with institutional support and regulatory reforms.
This study examines the barriers and enablers of Open Science adoption in low-resource contexts, offering insights to guide policymakers, institutions, and funders in creating inclusive strategies that advance global research and innovation.

Open Science, Low-Resource Research Environments, Research Accessibility, Digital Repositories

1. Bezuidenhout, L., Leonelli, S., Kelly, A. H., & Rappert, B. (2017). Beyond the digital divide: Towards a situated approach to open data. Science and Public Policy, 44(4), 464-475. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Chan, L., Okune, A., & Hillyer, R. (2020). Contextualizing open science for global inclusivity. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(9), 870-873. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Fecher, B., & Friesike, S. (2014). Open science: One term, five schools of thought. In Opening Science (pp. 17-47). Springer. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Piwowar, H. A., Priem, J., Larivière, V., et al. (2018). The state of OA: A large-scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of open access articles. PeerJ, 6, e4375. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Tennant, J. P., Waldner, F., Jacques, D. C., et al. (2016). The academic, economic, and societal impacts of open access: An evidence-based review. F1000Research, 5. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. UNESCO. (2021). UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science. Paris: UNESCO Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Wilkinson, M. D., Dumontier, M., Aalbersberg, I. J., et al. (2016). The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific Data, 3(1), 1-9. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. African Open Science Platform. (2021). Building capacity for open science in Africa. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Kitchin, R. (2014). The data revolution: Big data, open data, data infrastructures, and their consequences. SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. The Royal Society. (2012). Science as an open enterprise. London: The Royal Society. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Bartling, S., & Friesike, S. (2014). Opening science: The evolving guide on how the internet is changing research. Springer Open. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. OpenAIRE. (2020). Towards an open science infrastructure. Retrieved from www.openaire.eu. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. European Open Science Cloud (EOSC). (2020). EOSC Strategic Plan 2021–2027. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Tanzanian Data Lab (dLab). (2020). Open data initiatives in Tanzania. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Bezuidenhout, L., Leonelli, S., Kelly, A. H., & Rappert, B. (2017). Beyond the digital divide: Towards a situated approach to Open Science. Science and Public Policy, 44(4), 464-475. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Chan, L., Okune, A., Hillyer, R., Albornoz, D., & Posada, A. (2019). Contextualizing openness: Situating Open Science. University of Toronto Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Davidson, J., O’Flaherty, R., & Waddington, L. (2021). The role of institutional policies in shaping Open Science practices. Research Policy, 50(7), 104191. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Fecher, B., & Friesike, S. (2014). Open Science: One term, five schools of thought. In Opening science (pp. 17-47). Springer. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Moorthy, N., Davies, R., & Sartori, F. (2020). Training researchers for Open Science: The role of capacity-building initiatives. Science & Technology Studies, 33(2), 88-102. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Piwowar, H., Priem, J., & Larivière, V. (2018). The rise of preprints in Open Science. Nature, 562(7728), 32-34. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Smith, R., Wilson, M., & Cooper, C. (2022). Bridging the gap: How international collaborations support Open Science in low-resource settings. Global Science Review, 5(1), 45-59. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Tenopir, C., Dalton, E. D., Fish, A., Christian, L., Jones, M., & Smith, M. (2020). Research data sharing: Practices and perceptions in academic communities. PLOS ONE, 15(5), e0232983. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Vicente-Saez, R., & Martinez-Fuentes, C. (2018). Open Science as the new paradigm of scientific research. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 123, 227-239. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Arza, V., & Fressoli, M. (2017). Inclusive innovation and open science: What are the main challenges? Technology in Society, 51, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Balarin, M. (2018). Open access publishing: Challenges and opportunities for developing countries. Journal of Scholarly Communication, 6(2), 35–48. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]