Open science vs. open access - Featured

Open Science vs. Open Access: What Are the Differences?

by

Table of Contents

Introduction

The world of scholarly publishing is brimming with buzzwords that often sound interchangeable. “Open access” and “open science” are two of the most prominent—and most misunderstood—terms in this lexicon. At first glance, they may seem to describe the same noble ideal: a more transparent, democratic system for disseminating research. But scratch the surface, and you’ll find that they are not only distinct but also built upon different philosophical foundations, policy frameworks, and practical applications.

Open access (OA) has been around long enough to have hardened into several forms—from the idealistic Diamond model to the pay-to-play Gold model, and the ever-pragmatic Green variant. Open science, meanwhile, is a broader and more radical movement. It’s not just about reading the final paper—it’s about opening up the entire research process: data, software, methodologies, peer review, and yes, the article too.

This write-up breaks down what each of these concepts means, how they overlap, and where they diverge. We’ll explore the economic, ethical, and infrastructural underpinnings of each. We’ll examine how funders, institutions, and researchers interpret and implement these ideals. And most importantly, we’ll look at what it means for the future of knowledge production and dissemination.

Defining the Terms: Open Science vs. Open Access

Let’s begin by disentangling the definitions. Open access is a publishing model. Open science is a paradigm shift.

Open access refers specifically to the removal of paywalls for academic publications. In essence, it’s about who gets to read research. The Budapest Open Access Initiative (2002) defined it as “free availability on the public internet,” allowing users to “read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles.” The focus here is on the accessibility of final outputs.

Open science, on the other hand, expands this ethos across the entire research lifecycle. As the European Commission frames it, open science means “making the primary outputs of publicly funded research results—publications and the research data—publicly accessible in digital format with no or minimal restriction.” But that’s only part of the story. Open science also champions transparent peer review, open methodologies, open educational resources, citizen science, and even the ethical governance of research.

In short: Open access asks, “Can you read this paper?” Open science asks, “Can you see how the sausage was made—and maybe help make the next one?”

Philosophical and Ethical Foundations

Open access and open science differ not just in scope but in ethos.

The moral argument for open access is fairly straightforward: publicly funded research should be publicly accessible. This principle is often wrapped in economic reasoning—access costs are barriers to innovation and a public good—but it remains essentially transactional. You paid for it, you should see it.

Open science, however, delves into deeper waters. It is rooted in ideals of epistemic justice and participatory knowledge-making. It challenges the notion that science is a cloistered elite enterprise. Instead, it promotes a collaborative, distributed model of inquiry. It’s less about access to content and more about access to participation.

This distinction becomes especially important in discussions of global inequality. While open access can help a Nigerian scholar read an article published in Nature, open science aspires to help that same scholar co-create research agendas, access infrastructure, and share data on equal footing.

Open access says, “No one should have to pay $49.99 to read a PDF.” Open science replies, “That PDF is just the tip of the iceberg.”

Historical Evolution: A Tale of Two Movements

Open access has clearer historical milestones. The Budapest Open Access Initiative (2002), the Bethesda Statement (2003), and the Berlin Declaration (2003) were its founding charters. These were followed by policy mandates from funders like the NIH and Wellcome Trust and Plan S from cOAlition S.

Open science has a more diffuse origin story. Its seeds were sown in the 1990s with the rise of open-source software and data-sharing initiatives. The Human Genome Project was a landmark in open data ethics. In the 2010s, funders and policymakers began articulating more comprehensive frameworks. The European Commission made open science a cornerstone of its Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe programs. UNESCO’s 2021 Recommendation on open science further formalized its principles on a global scale.

If open access was born in the back rooms of publishing debates, open science was born on the fringes of activist labs, data archives, and interdisciplinary networks.

The Layers of Openness: What’s Included?

Let’s map out the different layers of openness:

  • Open access: Free, unrestricted access to peer-reviewed articles.
  • Open data: Access to datasets behind the research.
  • Open methodology: Detailed information on how the research was conducted.
  • Open source: Sharing of software and code used in research.
  • Open peer review: Transparent review processes, sometimes including reviewer identities.
  • Open educational resources: Teaching and learning materials made freely available.
  • Citizen science: Involvement of non-academic communities in research design and execution.

Clearly, open access is one part—an important part—but not the whole pie. It’s like confusing “having the movie” with “knowing how it was made, what camera they used, who funded it, and how the audience reacted in real time.”

Infrastructure and Policy Implications

This is where things get technical—and political.

Open access relies heavily on publishing platforms and repository infrastructure. Think arXiv, PubMed Central, or institutional repositories. The debate here often centers on Article Processing Charges (APCs), licensing (especially Creative Commons), and embargo periods.

Open science needs far broader infrastructure: interoperable data repositories, version control systems, reproducibility frameworks, open lab notebooks, and more. It demands not just policy compliance but also cultural change within disciplines. For example, data sharing is standard in genomics but rare in the humanities.

Funders are beginning to adapt. Horizon Europe requires not only open access but also data management plans and FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) principles for research data. The NIH has instituted a Data Management and Sharing Policy since 2023 that mandates all grant-funded researchers to submit and follow DMPs.

Put bluntly: Open access is a matter of journals; open science is a matter of systems.

Economics of Openness

Follow the money. Always.

Open access has been criticized for simply shifting costs from the reader to the author. In the Gold OA model, authors—or their institutions—pay APCs that can range from $1,000 to over $10,000. This “pay to publish” model has led to significant consolidation among large publishers like Elsevier and Springer Nature, who now dominate the OA landscape just as they did the subscription model.

Open science, though, doesn’t yet have a dominant business model. Its practices are often unfunded or underfunded. Data repositories, software maintenance, and peer review transparency require significant investment. Yet these elements are often seen as “extra” or “voluntary” work for researchers.

This has led to a patchwork of support. Some institutions fund data stewards; others rely on grant-based models. The result is a system that’s theoretically inclusive but practically uneven.

In effect, open access monetizes visibility. Open science demands structural redistribution.

Challenges and Criticisms

Neither concept is without flaws.

Open access has enabled the rise of predatory journals that exploit the APC model. Critics also argue that it commodifies scholarly communication under the banner of liberation. The biggest beneficiaries are often the same players who monopolized traditional publishing.

Open science has its own issues. It can become technocratic and alienating. Not all disciplines have the same norms around data sharing or reproducibility. Privacy concerns, especially in medical and ethnographic research, can clash with ideals of openness. And then there’s the labor: documenting code, managing data, and annotating workflows—none of which count toward tenure.

Moreover, both OA and OS risk becoming boxes to tick, rather than genuine practices of democratization.

The Cultural Shift Required

What’s really at stake here is not just policy, but culture.

Open access demands that institutions rethink their journal subscriptions and budgeting priorities. But Open science asks us to rethink the entire academic value system. It calls for recognizing and rewarding non-traditional contributions: data curation, code repositories, preprints, public engagement, and collaborative authorship.

This means that universities, funders, and ranking bodies need to evolve too. Metrics like the Journal Impact Factor must give way to more holistic assessments. Initiatives like DORA (Declaration on Research Assessment) and the Leiden Manifesto are steps in that direction, but they haven’t yet uprooted the entrenched hierarchies of academic prestige.

In this sense, open science is the revolution that open access helped start—but couldn’t finish.

Case Studies: Where the Rubber Meets the Road

Let’s look at some real-world contrasts.

In Latin America, SciELO and RedALyC offer free open access publishing with public funding and no APCs. That’s open access. Meanwhile, Brazil’s open data policies for agricultural and health research showcase open science in action, complete with data repositories, open APIs, and community participation.

In the UK, the Wellcome Trust not only mandates open access publishing but also supports software sustainability, open data, and citizen science projects. Their commitment reflects open science writ large.

The African Open Science Platform, spearheaded by the Academy of Science of South Africa, goes even further. It integrates data infrastructure, training, policy alignment, and community engagement. This is Open science done holistically—not just as a checkbox, but as a blueprint.

What the Future Holds

Open access is becoming the norm. Over 70% of new publications in Europe have been made available via OA. The U.S. Office of Science and Technology Policy’s Nelson Memo mandates public access to federally funded research by 2026.

Open science is still the next frontier. Its promise lies in transforming not just how research is shared but also how it is done. As AI, blockchain, and decentralized networks become part of research infrastructure, the possibilities multiply—but so do the challenges.

The future belongs to a hybrid model. Open access will continue to provide the scaffolding for visibility, but open science may provide the architecture for trust, collaboration, and equity.

And that’s the distinction we should watch—not just open outputs but open processes.

Conclusion

Open access and open science are not rival factions but nested visions. Open access seeks to unlock the endpoint of research—the article. Open science aspires to open the engine of knowledge itself.

The former is necessary but not sufficient, and the latter is ambitious but harder to scale. Understanding the difference isn’t just semantics. It shapes how institutions fund research, how journals define impact, how governments set policy, and how societies access and participate in knowledge production.

If open access is the front door, open science is the blueprint for the whole house.

We need both. But we also need to stop confusing the key with the kingdom.

Leave a comment