People; the problem in Open Science?

If only we fixed the publishing system. If only we fixed the incentives, rewards and recognition. Open Science (OS) likes to position itself as a systems problem. And whilst these things do matter, decades of the same conversations and limited change is unveiling an uncomfortable truth:

The biggest barrier to change in Open Science isn’t systems or structures. It’s people.

And I don’t just mean people in the abstract; systems are made up and enforced by people. If you don’t engage the people in research, you don’t get buy-in to change. If the wrong people run initiatives and advocate for change, then those initiatives fail. 

Systems Don’t Change Themselves

Systems do not persist because they are optimal. They persist because enough people benefit from them. Systems are built, maintained, defended, operated and exploited by people. 

Open Science often talks as if change will happen automatically once the “right” platforms, policies, or mandates are in place. The problem is that systems do not change unless the people within them behave differently, it must be an active change. If the people within systems are not supported or engaged sufficiently to make such a change, then the status quo will prevail. 

The lack of diverse voices

For a movement that claims to value openness and inclusion, the OS space is surprisingly narrow in which voices get heard. There is a lack of diversity in voices, not just demographically, but intellectually and experientially. Too few people genuinely challenge the dominant narratives from the inside. Far too many conversations happen among the same small, self-referential group (which are then often communicated as though this wasn’t the case). Dissent is often treated as a threat rather than a vital resource.

Critique is welcomed in theory, but in practice it’s filtered, softened, or ignored, especially when it comes from people without clout. This is something I’ve experienced in my own academic advocacy career. You challenge the dominant voices and, much like any other field in academia, they close ranks and force you out. 

Leading by Talking, Not by Doing

Another uncomfortable pattern in the OS space: a dire shortage of leading by example.

Many of the loudest Open Science advocates are deeply embedded in the very systems they critique such as traditional publishing, prestige-driven academia and grant-dependent research cultures. They speak the language of reform while continuing to “play the game” remarkably well. Researchers who sit on advisory boards talk about preprints but then celebrate publishing their latest Nature paper. Advocates demand additional work and effort, but then fail to follow their own pre-registration and have their work retracted. These aren’t just small issues. Each one causes substantial damage to the wider movement.  

Surviving in the system isn’t a moral failure, indeed there is a requirement (to an extent) to play the game. But there’s a credibility gap when calls for radical change come from people whose careers depend on the status quo. When those very people fail, consistently, to walk the walk. Open Science becomes performative and, at some point, that contradiction erodes trust.

Detachment

On the other side, there’s another group that creates friction but in a different way: those who are too detached from the reality of the average academic. In many ways, this is inevitable if you’re outside of the system for too long. But it’s impossible to combat or limit. These are the people pushing sweeping reforms without grappling with:

• precarious contracts
• publish-or-perish pressures
• overloaded working schedules
• hostile evaluation systems

When proposed solutions ignore these constraints, they feel less like liberation and more like moralizing. Academics are overworked and the academic enterprise is under (literal) attack. Many of the solutions increase workloads and the burden on academics - an issue many researchers have complained about directly to me. Change that isn’t compatible with everyday academic survival isn’t visionary, it’s simply unrealistic.

When Personalities Become the Bottleneck

This is where the question gets rather uncomfortable, but necessary. Are problematic personalities holding Open Science back?

Not in a dramatic villain sense, but in subtler ways:

• gatekeeping disguised as “quality control”
• defensiveness masquerading as expertise
• ego-driven leadership
• intolerance for disagreement or dissenting voices
• performative openness paired with quiet exclusion

Movements don’t fail only because of bad ideas. They fail because of human dynamics: power, status, fear, insecurity. Open Science is not immune to this. In fact, its moral framing may make it more vulnerable because questioning leaders can be framed as questioning the cause itself.

People are the solution

If people, not systems, are the main issue then people are also the solution. This means:

• making room for uncomfortable voices, not just agreeable ones
• valuing lived academic experience as much as theory; meet researchers where they are, don’t make them come to you
• rewarding those who actually practice openness, not just advocate for it
• accepting that some criticism will be messy, emotional, and imperfect
• letting go of the idea that Open Science has a single, unified direction

If we come together and lead by example we can achieve real change. Open Science needs humility, self-reflection and those willing to be challenged. Until then, we will keep chasing our tails.