{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,5,16]],"date-time":"2026-05-16T02:22:14Z","timestamp":1778898134534,"version":"3.51.4"},"reference-count":13,"publisher":"Frontiers Media SA","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2023,5,10]],"date-time":"2023-05-10T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1683676800000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0\/"}],"funder":[{"DOI":"10.13039\/501100007601","name":"Horizon 2020","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","id":[{"id":"10.13039\/501100007601","id-type":"DOI","asserted-by":"publisher"}]}],"content-domain":{"domain":["frontiersin.org"],"crossmark-restriction":true},"short-container-title":["Front. Res. Metr. Anal."],"abstract":"<jats:p>This article argues that adopting a research ethics and integrity perspective could support researchers in operationalizing the open science guiding principle \u201cas open as possible, as closed as necessary\u201d in a responsible and context-sensitive manner. To that end, the article points out why the guiding principle as such provides only a limited extent of action-guidance and outlines the practical value of ethical reflection when it comes to translating open science into responsible research practice. The article illustrates how research ethics and integrity considerations may help researchers understand the ethical rationale underpinning open science as well as recognize that limiting openness is necessary or at least normatively permissible in some situations. Finally, the article briefly discusses possible consequences of integrating open science into a responsibility-centered framework and implications on research assessment.<\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.3389\/frma.2023.1052353","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2023,5,10]],"date-time":"2023-05-10T09:25:06Z","timestamp":1683710706000},"update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3389\/crossmark-policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":11,"title":["Contours of a research ethics and integrity perspective on open science"],"prefix":"10.3389","volume":"8","author":[{"given":"Tom","family":"Lindemann","sequence":"first","affiliation":[]},{"given":"Lisa","family":"H\u00e4berlein","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[]}],"member":"1965","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2023,5,10]]},"reference":[{"key":"B1","author":"Brey","year":"2022","journal-title":"Generalised methodology for ethical assessment of emerging technologies."},{"key":"B2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1040","DOI":"10.2202\/1932-0213.1040","article-title":"The Historical Origins of 'Open Science': an essay on patronage, reputation and common agency contracting in the scientific revolution","volume":"3","author":"David","year":"2008","journal-title":"Capit. Soc."},{"key":"B3","unstructured":"Guidelines for Safeguarding Good Research PracticeCode of Conduct2019"},{"key":"B4","unstructured":"Dutilh NovaesC.\n          Argument and argumentation. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2022 Edition)2022"},{"key":"B5","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1177\/17470161231161267","article-title":"VIRT2UE: A European train-the-trainer programme for teaching research integrity","author":"Evans","year":"2023","journal-title":"Res. Ethics."},{"key":"B6","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"17","DOI":"10.1007\/978-3-319-00026-8_2","article-title":"\u201cOpen science: one term, five schools of thought,\u201d","volume-title":"Opening science","author":"Fecher","year":"2014"},{"key":"B7","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","DOI":"10.1002\/9781394165452","volume-title":"Responsive Ethics and Participation: Science, Technology and Democracy.","author":"Giannelos","year":"2022"},{"key":"B8","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"302","DOI":"10.1186\/s13104-022-06169-y","article-title":"Promoting trust in research and researchers: How open science and research integrity are intertwined","volume":"15","author":"Haven","year":"2022","journal-title":"BMC Res."},{"key":"B9","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"29","DOI":"10.5334\/dsj-2017-029","article-title":"Afraid of scooping: Case study on researcher strategies against fear of scooping in the context of open science","volume":"16","author":"Laine","year":"2017","journal-title":"Data Sci. J"},{"key":"B10","unstructured":"Recommendations resulting from the analysis of the consultation process\n            LindemannT.\n            H\u00e4berleinL.\n            H\u00f6vel\n            JostF.\n          ROSiE Deliverable D3.42022"},{"key":"B11","author":"Merton","year":"1973","journal-title":"The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations."},{"key":"B12","unstructured":"PendersB.\n            ShawD.\n            LutzP.\n            TownendD.\n            AkrongL.\n            ZvonarevaO.\n          ENERI Manual Research Integrity and Ethics2018"},{"key":"B13","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"53","DOI":"10.1007\/s11948-006-0006-y","article-title":"Fostering integrity in research: Definitions, current knowledge, and future directions","volume":"12","author":"Steneck","year":"2006","journal-title":"Sci. Eng. Ethics"}],"container-title":["Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics"],"original-title":[],"link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/www.frontiersin.org\/articles\/10.3389\/frma.2023.1052353\/full","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2023,5,10]],"date-time":"2023-05-10T09:25:15Z","timestamp":1683710715000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/www.frontiersin.org\/articles\/10.3389\/frma.2023.1052353\/full"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2023,5,10]]},"references-count":13,"alternative-id":["10.3389\/frma.2023.1052353"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3389\/frma.2023.1052353","relation":{},"ISSN":["2504-0537"],"issn-type":[{"value":"2504-0537","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2023,5,10]]},"article-number":"1052353"}}