The debate surrounding open science (OS), encompassing open access (OA), open data (OD), and open peer review, has spanned over two decades. While progress has been made, controversies persist regarding business models, sustainability, researcher incentives, and global equity. The COVID-19 pandemic presented a critical juncture, with advocates claiming OS saved lives, while skeptics raised concerns about disseminating unvetted science and misinformation. This study aims to rigorously analyze the international OS debate during the pandemic, examining how the pandemic impacted discussions around the value, barriers, and future directions of OS. The research question is: How did the COVID-19 pandemic impact the debate on open science?

The paper references numerous prior works on open access and open science, highlighting the existing debates and controversies before the pandemic. It acknowledges the increasing adoption of open practices but emphasizes the ongoing discussions regarding various models of open access, the sustainability of open access publishing, the role of commercial entities, and the implications of open science for global equity. The review sets the stage for examining how the pandemic influenced existing arguments and introduced new perspectives.

This study employed a qualitative inductive content analysis of a corpus of 446 items (editorials, thought pieces, blogs, media stories, press releases, journal articles, etc.) published between December 2019 and December 2022 in English, German, Portuguese, and Spanish. The corpus was compiled using various databases and websites, focusing on relevance to the research question. A qualitative thematic analysis was conducted using NVivo 1.7.1. Initially, 32 core English-language items were coded in detail, generating a codebook. The remaining English-language items and items in other languages were then coded using this codebook, with adjustments made as needed. This process allowed for the identification of recurring themes within the debate.

The findings indicate a widespread belief that the pandemic strengthened the case for open science. Metaphors such as "stress test," "catalyst," "revolution," and "tipping point" were frequently used to describe the pandemic's impact. There was a clear perception that open science had a positive effect on the pandemic response, creating a direct link between open practices and societal benefits. While the core arguments for open science remained similar, the focus of the debate shifted. Discussions around OA business models and critical perspectives on OS decreased, while open data sharing and preprinting gained prominence. Concerns about information quality and misinformation also emerged as significant aspects of the discussion. The study also highlights a move towards a more inclusive conceptualization of open science, emphasizing its societal relevance and equity considerations. This includes the increased attention given to the UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science, which encourages a broader definition of OS that includes engagement with actors beyond the academy and connections with diverse knowledge systems. The findings show significant discussion in German-speaking media and publications regarding the need for increased open data sharing, particularly government data, to improve efficiency and trust.

The findings demonstrate that the COVID-19 pandemic significantly impacted the open science debate, primarily by providing a concrete context to existing arguments. The pandemic's urgency highlighted the societal benefits of open science, making these arguments more salient and credible. While the core arguments remained consistent, the context of the pandemic altered the focus, emphasizing the role of open data, preprints, and the challenges of misinformation. The increased attention to the societal implications and equity issues within open science reflects a growing understanding of its broader impact and the need for inclusivity. The shifting focus highlights the dynamic nature of the open science debate and how contextual factors shape its trajectory.

This study reveals that the COVID-19 pandemic amplified existing arguments for open science while shifting the focus of the debate. The pandemic served as a powerful case study illustrating the benefits of open science for both scientific advancement and societal well-being. Future research could explore the long-term effects of the pandemic on open science practices and policies, particularly concerning the sustainability of changes observed and the integration of diverse knowledge systems.

The study's reliance on a specific corpus of published materials, though extensive, might not fully represent the entire global debate on open science during the pandemic. The selection of languages (English, German, Portuguese, and Spanish) limits the scope of the analysis. Furthermore, the study focuses on the impact of the pandemic on the debate, not the practical application of open science during the crisis. Finally, the reliance on existing literature might limit the inclusion of novel perspectives not yet captured in published materials.