Do open science advocates walk the talk? Evidence from positive position papers

Abstract

This study examines the attitude–behaviour gap within the open science movement. We analysed Positive Position Papers on Open Science (PPPos) indexed in the Web of Science (2014–2023), along with their focal authors, as observable samples to investigate how publicly expressed support for open science translates into open access (OA) publishing practices. We compared OA publishing patterns across countries, disciplines and funding contexts. The cumulative All OA (72.4%) and Immediate OA (54.5%) rates for PPPos are substantially higher than global averages (49.8% and 32.8%, respectively). However, a relatively large gap remains, with over 30% of PPPos published in 2023 not available as Immediate OA. Focal authors show higher career-level OA rates than matched controls within the same journal-year environment, tend to publish in journals with higher OA rates, exhibit pre-existing OA preferences and show further increases in OA adoption after their first observed PPPos publication. These findings indicate partial but incomplete alignment between expressed support and OA behaviour, highlighting the roles of funding conditions, disciplinary norms and journal-level OA opportunities. By integrating the theory of planned behaviour with large-scale bibliometric evidence, this study offers evidence to inform OA policies aimed at reducing financial and institutional barriers to OA adoption.