Open Science between Promises and Paradoxes, democratization or new dependency?

By Fabiano Couto Corrêa da Silva

Introduction

Image: Sara Varasteh by Unsplash.

The open science movement emerged as one of the most promising responses to challenges of access and equity in knowledge production. With the promise of democratizing science—making it more transparent, collaborative and accessible to all—open science has gained traction worldwide, driving the creation of repositories, open access to publications and the sharing of research data.

However, as explored in the second chapter of the e-book Quem controla seus dados?¹, this noble ideal is not free from tensions and paradoxes. The pressing question is: Is open science truly building a fairer scientific ecosystem, or does it risk inadvertently creating new forms of dependency and deepening existing inequalities? For the SciELO community and for the Global South, this is a critical and essential reflection.

The FAIR principles and the democratic promise

At the heart of open science are the FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable), which aim to ensure that research data can be found, accessed, interoperate and be reused. The idea is that, by making data open, other researchers can validate them, replicate studies and create new knowledge from earlier investigations. The rhetoric of democratization is powerful: in theory, anyone anywhere could access the latest scientific data and contribute to advancing knowledge.

Yet practice reveals a more complex reality. Mere availability of data does not guarantee equitable use. The capacity to process and analyze large volumes of data (Big Data) demands robust computational infrastructures, specialized software and advanced analytical skills—resources that remain unevenly distributed globally. Open access to publications, while an undeniable step forward, also faces sustainability challenges, with funding models like APCs (Article Processing Charges) creating financial barriers for researchers at less-resourced institutions.

Paradoxes of openness

Implementing open science brings a series of paradoxes that must be confronted:

• Open data, unequal capacity: Paradoxically, opening data can benefit most those who already hold power. Technology corporations and research institutions in the Global North, with their immense computing capacity, are better positioned to extract value from open data generated worldwide, including biodiversity, health and social data from the Global South. This creates a dynamic in which the South supplies raw material (data) and the North controls the means of knowledge production from it.
• Algorithms and curation: the invisible power of discovery: In an ocean of open data and publications, how is relevant information discovered? The answer lies in search algorithms and curation platforms. These systems, mostly controlled by commercial companies, become the new gatekeepers of knowledge. Their often-opaque ranking and recommendation logics determine what is visible and what remains invisible, subtly but powerfully shaping the research agenda.
• Tension between openness and control: Open science coexists with an evaluation system that still values traditional metrics and publication in “high-impact” journals—many of which operate under closed or expensive business models. Researchers thus find themselves at a crossroads: pressured to share their data, yet also to publish in venues that guarantee prestige and career progression.

Citizen science and resistance to hegemony

In response to these challenges, movements are emerging that seek to build a more equitable and participatory open science. Citizen science, which involves the public in data collection and analysis, has the potential to democratize not only access but the very practice of science. Nonetheless, it is crucial to ask who participates and on what terms, to avoid citizen science becoming merely a way to extract data from communities without genuine engagement.

There are also significant movements resisting hegemonic open science, defending data sovereignty and the right of communities to control how their information is used. Initiatives such as local repositories, non-commercial publishing platforms and advocacy for data protocols that respect traditional knowledge are examples of a struggle for a truly decolonized open science.

Conclusion: toward a critical, contextualized open science

Open science is not a magic solution but a field of disputes and possibilities. Its promise of democratization can only be realized if we face its paradoxes head-on. This requires more than simply opening data; it calls for building local capacities, developing sovereign infrastructures and promoting policies that ensure equitable participation in governing the scientific ecosystem.

It is essential that the scientific community—especially in Latin America and the Global South—take an active role in defining the terms of openness, ensuring that it serves the democratization of knowledge rather than reproducing inequalities. The open science we need recognizes and values epistemic diversity, promotes cognitive justice and builds bridges—not walls—between different ways of knowing.

Posts of the series about the Quem controla seus dados? book

• Data Colonialism in Science: A New Form of Epistemic Domination
• Open Science between Promises and Paradoxes, democratization or new dependency?
• Scientific Integrity in the Age of AI: fraud, manipulation, and new transparency challenges
• Scientific Data Sovereignty in the tension between global openness and local autonomy

Note

1 SILVA, F.C.C. Quem controla seus dados? Ciência Aberta, Colonialismo de Dados e Soberania na era da Inteligência Artificial e do Big Data. São Paulo: Pimenta Cultural, 2025 [viewed 05 November 2025]. https://doi.org/10.31560/pimentacultural/978-85-7221-474-2. Available from: https://www.pimentacultural.com/livro/quem-controla-dados/ ↩

References

SILVA, F.C.C. Quem controla seus dados? Ciência Aberta, Colonialismo de Dados e Soberania na era da Inteligência Artificial e do Big Data. São Paulo: Pimenta Cultural, 2025 [viewed 05 November 2025]. https://doi.org/10.31560/pimentacultural/978-85-7221-474-2. Available from: https://www.pimentacultural.com/livro/quem-controla-dados/

About Fabiano Couto Corrêa da Silva

Fabiano Couto Corrêa da Silva is a researcher in Information Science focusing on open science, data colonialism and informational sovereignty. He works at the intersection of post-colonial studies, critical information theory and data governance. He is the author of Who Controls Your Data? Open Science, Data Colonialism and Sovereignty in the Age of Artificial Intelligence and Big Data (Pimenta Cultural, 2025). His work examines power asymmetries in scholarly communication and proposes pathways toward a fairer, more democratic science. He leads DataLab – Laboratory for Data, Institutional Metrics and Scientific Reproducibility, with an emphasis on FAIR/CARE.

Translated from the original in Portuguese by Fabiano Couto Corrêa da Silva.