Nearly a decade ago, science entered a major crisis of confidence. The trigger was the 2015 publication of an empirical study on replicability. In it, psychologist Brian Nosek and his team replicated 100 experiments from three of the world's leading scientific journals. Of those 100, 97 claimed to have produced significant results; that is, the final data had passed a mathematical filter and the result was considered "true" and not a product of chance. However, when Nosek repeated them, only 36 experiments yielded results similar to the originals. The rest showed absolutely nothing, except that the extraordinary conclusions of numerous past articles could have been established by pure chance.

For how many years had the science of chance been practiced?

This doubt became critical, and when it became widespread, it earned the nickname "replication crisis." For the first time, it was revealed that numerous scientific theories and conclusions, especially in biomedicine and psychology, were based on single studies that were accepted at the time and never questioned again.

Although the crisis did not invalidate—nor does it invalidate—the scientific method, it was the definitive opportunity for researchers to begin denouncing, in addition to the lack of replication, the other shameful aspects of academic practice: rigid hierarchies, opacity, competitiveness, low salaries, lack of incentives… So many sudden gaps demanded a renewal, and since crises also create opportunities, the so-called principles of open science emerged, a promise of revolution.

Open science, therefore, promotes more collaborative behavior throughout the entire process of research and academic production: from formulated hypotheses and data collection to analysis software… According to this movement, all of this should be shared publicly as soon as possible so that others can question or reuse it with the aim of achieving a greater scientific and social impact. Like any movement, open science has its rules or principles, and although these vary slightly depending on the institution practicing it, they generally move in the same direction.

University College London (UCL) proposes eight principles of open science:

• FAIR data, an acronym formed from the English words findable (data easily accessible to scientists and the general public), accessible (using understandable language), interoperable (promoting the exchange of information with other researchers), and reusable (data shared for use in subsequent studies).

• Integrity: honest, respectful, and responsible conduct throughout the research process.

• Use of Next Generation Metrics. This represents a cultural shift in how statistics are conducted, as much more precise measurements can now be made than in the past. The future of scientific communication is one of the most prominent pillars of open science: the aim is to transform the current publishing model into one of fully open access.

• The fifth principle is citizen science, which proposes that the general public play a more significant role in research processes, given that they can contribute knowledge that eludes scientists.

• Education. To ensure that open science doesn't remain merely an idea, academics must know how to implement it. This is why universities and research centers must train their professionals in this new era of the scientific profession.

• "What do I gain by being more transparent?" To answer this question, it is proposed to reward those who strive to implement open science principles through recognition and financial incentives.

• The final pillar is the European Open Science Cloud (EOSC), recognized by the Council of the European Union as a pilot project to promote science. It provides European researchers, innovators, businesses, and citizens with a multidisciplinary environment to publish, find, and reuse data, tools, and services for research and innovation.

Based on these principles, the current generation of scientists is calling for an open approach that improves the relationship between science and society. If discoveries are shared, they can reach policymakers more quickly, but above all, the public. After all, aren't they the ones who elect those policymakers?

The original article was published in Spanish at Ethic.es