Cataloguing and theorising open research practices in the arts, humanities and social sciences: Problematising and diversifying ‘Open Science’

Cataloguing and theorising open research... | F1000Research "use strict";function _typeof(t){return(_typeof="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==typeof Symbol.iterator?function(t){return typeof t}:function(t){return t&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&t.constructor===Symbol&&t!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":typeof t})(t)}!function(){var t=function(){var t,e,o=[],n=window,r=n;for(;r;){try{if(r.frames.__tcfapiLocator){t=r;break}}catch(t){}if(r===n.top)break;r=r.parent}t||(!function t(){var e=n.document,o=!!n.frames.__tcfapiLocator;if(!o)if(e.body){var r=e.createElement("iframe");r.style.cssText="display:none",r.name="__tcfapiLocator",e.body.appendChild(r)}else setTimeout(t,5);return!o}(),n.__tcfapi=function(){for(var t=arguments.length,n=new Array(t),r=0;r 3&&2===parseInt(n[1],10)&&"boolean"==typeof n[3]&&(e=n[3],"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]("set",!0)):"ping"===n[0]?"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]({gdprApplies:e,cmpLoaded:!1,cmpStatus:"stub"}):o.push(n)},n.addEventListener("message",(function(t){var e="string"==typeof t.data,o={};if(e)try{o=JSON.parse(t.data)}catch(t){}else o=t.data;var n="object"===_typeof(o)&&null!==o?o.__tcfapiCall:null;n&&window.__tcfapi(n.command,n.version,(function(o,r){var a={__tcfapiReturn:{returnValue:o,success:r,callId:n.callId}};t&&t.source&&t.source.postMessage&&t.source.postMessage(e?JSON.stringify(a):a,"*")}),n.parameter)}),!1))};"undefined"!=typeof module?module.exports=t:t()}(); dataLayer = dataLayer || []; // Standard GTM initialization - Google Consent Mode handles consent automatically (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start': new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0], j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src= 'https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl+ '>m_auth=hzk0Vc3qFsQYhCrIoHz68A>m_preview=env-1>m_cookies_win=x';f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f); })(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-MWFK8L5J'); ;window.NREUM||(NREUM={});NREUM.init={distributed_tracing:{enabled:true},privacy:{cookies_enabled:true},ajax:{deny_list:["bam.nr-data.net"]}}; ;NREUM.loader_config={accountID:"438030",trustKey:"438030",agentID:"772317073",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073"} ;NREUM.info={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073",sa:1} ;/*! For license information please see nr-loader-spa-1.236.0.min.js.LICENSE.txt */ (()=>{"use strict";var e,t,r={5763:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P_:()=>l,Mt:()=>g,C5:()=>s,DL:()=>v,OP:()=>T,lF:()=>D,Yu:()=>y,Dg:()=>h,CX:()=>c,GE:()=>b,sU:()=>_});var n=r(8632),i=r(9567);const o={beacon:n.ce.beacon,errorBeacon:n.ce.errorBeacon,licenseKey:void 0,applicationID:void 0,sa:void 0,queueTime:void 0,applicationTime:void 0,ttGuid:void 0,user:void 0,account:void 0,product:void 0,extra:void 0,jsAttributes:{},userAttributes:void 0,atts:void 0,transactionName:void 0,tNamePlain:void 0},a={};function s(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");if(!a[e])throw new Error("Info for ".concat(e," was never set"));return a[e]}function c(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");a[e]=(0,i.D)(t,o),(0,n.Qy)(e,a[e],"info")}var u=r(7056);const d=()=>{const e={blockSelector:"[data-nr-block]",maskInputOptions:{password:!0}};return{allow_bfcache:!0,privacy:{cookies_enabled:!0},ajax:{deny_list:void 0,enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},distributed_tracing:{enabled:void 0,exclude_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_tracecontext_headers:void 0,allowed_origins:void 0},session:{domain:void 0,expiresMs:u.oD,inactiveMs:u.Hb},ssl:void 0,obfuscate:void 0,jserrors:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},metrics:{enabled:!0},page_action:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30},page_view_event:{enabled:!0},page_view_timing:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30,long_task:!1},session_trace:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},harvest:{tooManyRequestsDelay:60},session_replay:{enabled:!1,harvestTimeSeconds:60,sampleRate:.1,errorSampleRate:.1,maskTextSelector:"*",maskAllInputs:!0,get blockClass(){return"nr-block"},get ignoreClass(){return"nr-ignore"},get maskTextClass(){return"nr-mask"},get blockSelector(){return e.blockSelector},set blockSelector(t){e.blockSelector+=",".concat(t)},get maskInputOptions(){return e.maskInputOptions},set maskInputOptions(t){e.maskInputOptions={...t,password:!0}}},spa:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10}}},f={};function l(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");if(!f[e])throw new Error("Configuration for ".concat(e," was never set"));return f[e]}function h(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");f[e]=(0,i.D)(t,d()),(0,n.Qy)(e,f[e],"config")}function g(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");var r=l(e);if(r){for(var n=t.split("."),i=0;i {r.d(t,{D:()=>i});var n=r(50);function i(e,t){try{if(!e||"object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires an object as input");if(!t||"object"!=typeof t)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires a model to set its initial properties");const r=Object.create(Object.getPrototypeOf(t),Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(t)),o=0===Object.keys(r).length?e:r;for(let a in o)if(void 0!==e[a])try{"object"==typeof e[a]&&"object"==typeof t[a]?r[a]=i(e[a],t[a]):r[a]=e[a]}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occurred while setting a property of a Configurable",e)}return r}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting a Configurable",e)}}},6818:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Re:()=>i,gF:()=>o,q4:()=>n});const n="1.236.0",i="PROD",o="CDN"},385:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{FN:()=>a,IF:()=>u,Nk:()=>f,Tt:()=>s,_A:()=>o,il:()=>n,pL:()=>c,v6:()=>i,w1:()=>d});const n="undefined"!=typeof window&&!!window.document,i="undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator),o=n?window:"undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis),a=""+o?.location,s=/iPad|iPhone|iPod/.test(navigator.userAgent),c=s&&"undefined"==typeof SharedWorker,u=(()=>{const e=navigator.userAgent.match(/Firefox[/\s](\d+\.\d+)/);return Array.isArray(e)&&e.length>=2?+e[1]:0})(),d=Boolean(n&&window.document.documentMode),f=!!navigator.sendBeacon},1117:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{w:()=>o});var n=r(50);const i={agentIdentifier:"",ee:void 0};class o{constructor(e){try{if("object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("shared context requires an object as input");this.sharedContext={},Object.assign(this.sharedContext,i),Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,r]=e;Object.keys(i).includes(t)&&(this.sharedContext[t]=r)}))}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting SharedContext",e)}}}},8e3:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{L:()=>d,R:()=>c});var n=r(2177),i=r(1284),o=r(4322),a=r(3325);const s={};function c(e,t){const r={staged:!1,priority:a.p[t]||0};u(e),s[e].get(t)||s[e].set(t,r)}function u(e){e&&(s[e]||(s[e]=new Map))}function d(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:"",t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:"feature";if(u(e),!e||!s[e].get(t))return a(t);s[e].get(t).staged=!0;const r=[...s[e]];function a(t){const r=e?n.ee.get(e):n.ee,a=o.X.handlers;if(r.backlog&&a){var s=r.backlog[t],c=a[t];if(c){for(var u=0;s&&u {let[t,r]=e;return r.staged}))&&(r.sort(((e,t)=>e[1].priority-t[1].priority)),r.forEach((e=>{let[t]=e;a(t)})))}function f(e,t){var r=e[1];(0,i.D)(t[r],(function(t,r){var n=e[0];if(r[0]===n){var i=r[1],o=e[3],a=e[2];i.apply(o,a)}}))}},2177:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{c:()=>f,ee:()=>u});var n=r(8632),i=r(2210),o=r(1284),a=r(5763),s="nr@context";let c=(0,n.fP)();var u;function d(){}function f(e){return(0,i.X)(e,s,l)}function l(){return new d}function h(){u.aborted=!0,u.backlog={}}c.ee?u=c.ee:(u=function e(t,r){var n={},c={},f={},g=!1;try{g=16===r.length&&(0,a.OP)(r).isolatedBacklog}catch(e){}var p={on:b,addEventListener:b,removeEventListener:y,emit:v,get:x,listeners:w,context:m,buffer:A,abort:h,aborted:!1,isBuffering:E,debugId:r,backlog:g?{}:t&&"object"==typeof t.backlog?t.backlog:{}};return p;function m(e){return e&&e instanceof d?e:e?(0,i.X)(e,s,l):l()}function v(e,r,n,i,o){if(!1!==o&&(o=!0),!u.aborted||i){t&&o&&t.emit(e,r,n);for(var a=m(n),s=w(e),d=s.length,f=0;fn,p:()=>i});var n=r(2177).ee.get("handle");function i(e,t,r,i,o){o?(o.buffer([e],i),o.emit(e,t,r)):(n.buffer([e],i),n.emit(e,t,r))}},4322:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>o});var n=r(5546);o.on=a;var i=o.handlers={};function o(e,t,r,o){a(o||n.E,i,e,t,r)}function a(e,t,r,i,o){o||(o="feature"),e||(e=n.E);var a=t[o]=t[o]||{};(a[r]=a[r]||[]).push([e,i])}},3239:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{bP:()=>s,iz:()=>c,m$:()=>a});var n=r(385);let i=!1,o=!1;try{const e={get passive(){return i=!0,!1},get signal(){return o=!0,!1}};n._A.addEventListener("test",null,e),n._A.removeEventListener("test",null,e)}catch(e){}function a(e,t){return i||o?{capture:!!e,passive:i,signal:t}:!!e}function s(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;window.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}function c(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;document.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}},4402:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Ht:()=>u,M:()=>c,Rl:()=>a,ky:()=>s});var n=r(385);const i="xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx";function o(e,t){return e?15&e[t]:16*Math.random()|0}function a(){const e=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let t,r=0;return e&&e.getRandomValues&&(t=e.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31))),i.split("").map((e=>"x"===e?o(t,++r).toString(16):"y"===e?(3&o()|8).toString(16):e)).join("")}function s(e){const t=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let r,i=0;t&&t.getRandomValues&&(r=t.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31)));const a=[];for(var s=0;s {r.d(t,{Bq:()=>n,Hb:()=>o,oD:()=>i});const n="NRBA",i=144e5,o=18e5},7894:(e,t,r)=>{function n(){return Math.round(performance.now())}r.d(t,{z:()=>n})},7243:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{e:()=>o});var n=r(385),i={};function o(e){if(e in i)return i[e];if(0===(e||"").indexOf("data:"))return{protocol:"data"};let t;var r=n._A?.location,o={};if(n.il)t=document.createElement("a"),t.href=e;else try{t=new URL(e,r.href)}catch(e){return o}o.port=t.port;var a=t.href.split("://");!o.port&&a[1]&&(o.port=a[1].split("/")[0].split("@").pop().split(":")[1]),o.port&&"0"!==o.port||(o.port="https"===a[0]?"443":"80"),o.hostname=t.hostname||r.hostname,o.pathname=t.pathname,o.protocol=a[0],"/"!==o.pathname.charAt(0)&&(o.pathname="/"+o.pathname);var s=!t.protocol||":"===t.protocol||t.protocol===r.protocol,c=t.hostname===r.hostname&&t.port===r.port;return o.sameOrigin=s&&(!t.hostname||c),"/"===o.pathname&&(i[e]=o),o}},50:(e,t,r)=>{function n(e,t){"function"==typeof console.warn&&(console.warn("New Relic: ".concat(e)),t&&console.warn(t))}r.d(t,{Z:()=>n})},2587:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>c,T:()=>u});var n=r(2177),i=r(5546),o=r(8e3),a=r(3325);const s={stn:[a.D.sessionTrace],err:[a.D.jserrors,a.D.metrics],ins:[a.D.pageAction],spa:[a.D.spa],sr:[a.D.sessionReplay,a.D.sessionTrace]};function c(e,t){const r=n.ee.get(t);e&&"object"==typeof e&&(Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,n]=e;void 0===u[t]&&(s[t]?s[t].forEach((e=>{n?(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,e,r):(0,i.p)("block-"+t,[],void 0,e,r),(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+t,[Boolean(n)],void 0,e,r)})):n&&(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,void 0,r),u[t]=Boolean(n))})),Object.keys(s).forEach((e=>{void 0===u[e]&&(s[e]?.forEach((t=>(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+e,[!1],void 0,t,r))),u[e]=!1)})),(0,o.L)(t,a.D.pageViewEvent))}const u={}},2210:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>i});var n=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;function i(e,t,r){if(n.call(e,t))return e[t];var i=r();if(Object.defineProperty&&Object.keys)try{return Object.defineProperty(e,t,{value:i,writable:!0,enumerable:!1}),i}catch(e){}return e[t]=i,i}},1284:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n});const n=(e,t)=>Object.entries(e||{}).map((e=>{let[r,n]=e;return t(r,n)}))},4351:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P:()=>o});var n=r(2177);const i=()=>{const e=new WeakSet;return(t,r)=>{if("object"==typeof r&&null!==r){if(e.has(r))return;e.add(r)}return r}};function o(e){try{return JSON.stringify(e,i())}catch(e){try{n.ee.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}}},3960:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{K:()=>a,b:()=>o});var n=r(3239);function i(){return"undefined"==typeof document||"complete"===document.readyState}function o(e,t){if(i())return e();(0,n.bP)("load",e,t)}function a(e){if(i())return e();(0,n.iz)("DOMContentLoaded",e)}},8632:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{EZ:()=>u,Qy:()=>c,ce:()=>o,fP:()=>a,gG:()=>d,mF:()=>s});var n=r(7894),i=r(385);const o={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net"};function a(){return i._A.NREUM||(i._A.NREUM={}),void 0===i._A.newrelic&&(i._A.newrelic=i._A.NREUM),i._A.NREUM}function s(){let e=a();return e.o||(e.o={ST:i._A.setTimeout,SI:i._A.setImmediate,CT:i._A.clearTimeout,XHR:i._A.XMLHttpRequest,REQ:i._A.Request,EV:i._A.Event,PR:i._A.Promise,MO:i._A.MutationObserver,FETCH:i._A.fetch}),e}function c(e,t,r){let i=a();const o=i.initializedAgents||{},s=o[e]||{};return Object.keys(s).length||(s.initializedAt={ms:(0,n.z)(),date:new Date}),i.initializedAgents={...o,[e]:{...s,[r]:t}},i}function u(e,t){a()[e]=t}function d(){return function(){let e=a();const t=e.info||{};e.info={beacon:o.beacon,errorBeacon:o.errorBeacon,...t}}(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.init||{};e.init={...t}}(),s(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.loader_config||{};e.loader_config={...t}}(),a()}},7956:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>i});var n=r(3239);function i(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1],r=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,i=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;return void(0,n.iz)("visibilitychange",(function(){if(t)return void("hidden"==document.visibilityState&&e());e(document.visibilityState)}),r,i)}},1214:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{em:()=>v,u5:()=>N,QU:()=>S,_L:()=>I,Gm:()=>L,Lg:()=>M,gy:()=>U,BV:()=>Q,Kf:()=>ee});var n=r(2177);const i="nr@original";var o=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty,a=!1;function s(e,t){return e||(e=n.ee),r.inPlace=function(e,t,n,i,o){n||(n="");var a,s,c,u="-"===n.charAt(0);for(c=0;c 2?n-2:0),o=2;o {r(A[T],e,w),r(E[T],e,w)})),r(l._A,"fetch",y),t.on(y+"end",(function(e,r){var n=this;if(r){var i=r.headers.get("content-length");null!==i&&(n.rxSize=i),t.emit(y+"done",[null,r],n)}else t.emit(y+"done",[e],n)})),t}const O={},j=["pushState","replaceState"];function S(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("history")}(e);return!l.il||O[t.debugId]++||(O[t.debugId]=1,s(t).inPlace(window.history,j,"-")),t}var P=r(3239);const C={},R=["appendChild","insertBefore","replaceChild"];function I(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("jsonp")}(e);if(!l.il||C[t.debugId])return t;C[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=/[?&](?:callback|cb)=([^&#]+)/,o=/(.*)\.([^.]+)/,a=/^(\w+)(\.|$)(.*)$/;function c(e,t){var r=e.match(a),n=r[1],i=r[3];return i?c(i,t[n]):t[n]}return r.inPlace(Node.prototype,R,"dom-"),t.on("dom-start",(function(e){!function(e){if(!e||"string"!=typeof e.nodeName||"script"!==e.nodeName.toLowerCase())return;if("function"!=typeof e.addEventListener)return;var n=(a=e.src,s=a.match(i),s?s[1]:null);var a,s;if(!n)return;var u=function(e){var t=e.match(o);if(t&&t.length>=3)return{key:t[2],parent:c(t[1],window)};return{key:e,parent:window}}(n);if("function"!=typeof u.parent[u.key])return;var d={};function f(){t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}function l(){t.emit("jsonp-error",[],d),t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}r.inPlace(u.parent,[u.key],"cb-",d),e.addEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.addEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1)),t.emit("new-jsonp",[e.src],d)}(e[0])})),t}var k=r(5763);const H={};function L(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("mutation")}(e);if(!l.il||H[t.debugId])return t;H[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=k.Yu.MO;return i&&(window.MutationObserver=function(e){return this instanceof i?new i(r(e,"fn-")):i.apply(this,arguments)},MutationObserver.prototype=i.prototype),t}const z={};function M(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("promise")}(e);if(z[t.debugId])return t;z[t.debugId]=!0;var r=n.c,o=s(t),a=k.Yu.PR;return a&&function(){function e(r){var n=t.context(),i=o(r,"executor-",n,null,!1);const s=Reflect.construct(a,[i],e);return t.context(s).getCtx=function(){return n},s}l._A.Promise=e,Object.defineProperty(e,"name",{value:"Promise"}),e.toString=function(){return a.toString()},Object.setPrototypeOf(e,a),["all","race"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){let i=!1;[...e||[]].forEach((e=>{this.resolve(e).then(a("all"===r),a(!1))}));const o=n.apply(this,arguments);return o;function a(e){return function(){t.emit("propagate",[null,!i],o,!1,!1),i=i||!e}}}})),["resolve","reject"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){const r=n.apply(this,arguments);return e!==r&&t.emit("propagate",[e,!0],r,!1,!1),r}})),e.prototype=a.prototype;const n=a.prototype.then;a.prototype.then=function(){var e=this,i=r(e);i.promise=e;for(var a=arguments.length,s=new Array(a),c=0;c e())),t};function m(e,t){i.inPlace(t,["onreadystatechange"],"fn-",E)}function b(){var e=this,t=r.context(e);e.readyState>3&&!t.resolved&&(t.resolved=!0,r.emit("xhr-resolved",[],e)),i.inPlace(e,f,"fn-",E)}if(function(e,t){for(var r in e)t[r]=e[r]}(o,p),p.prototype=o.prototype,i.inPlace(p.prototype,J,"-xhr-",E),r.on("send-xhr-start",(function(e,t){m(e,t),function(e){h.push(e),a&&(y?y.then(A):u?u(A):(w=-w,x.data=w))}(t)})),r.on("open-xhr-start",m),a){var y=c&&c.resolve();if(!u&&!c){var w=1,x=document.createTextNode(w);new a(A).observe(x,{characterData:!0})}}else t.on("fn-end",(function(e){e[0]&&e[0].type===d||A()}));function A(){for(var e=0;e {r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.ajax},6660:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{A:()=>i,t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.jserrors,i="nr@seenError"},3081:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{gF:()=>o,mY:()=>i,t9:()=>n,vz:()=>s,xS:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.metrics,i="sm",o="cm",a="storeSupportabilityMetrics",s="storeEventMetrics"},4649:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageAction},7633:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Dz:()=>i,OJ:()=>a,qw:()=>o,t9:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewEvent,i="firstbyte",o="domcontent",a="windowload"},9251:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewTiming},3614:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BST_RESOURCE:()=>i,END:()=>s,FEATURE_NAME:()=>n,FN_END:()=>u,FN_START:()=>c,PUSH_STATE:()=>d,RESOURCE:()=>o,START:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.sessionTrace,i="bstResource",o="resource",a="-start",s="-end",c="fn"+a,u="fn"+s,d="pushState"},7836:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BODY:()=>A,CB_END:()=>E,CB_START:()=>u,END:()=>x,FEATURE_NAME:()=>i,FETCH:()=>_,FETCH_BODY:()=>v,FETCH_DONE:()=>m,FETCH_START:()=>p,FN_END:()=>c,FN_START:()=>s,INTERACTION:()=>l,INTERACTION_API:()=>d,INTERACTION_EVENTS:()=>o,JSONP_END:()=>b,JSONP_NODE:()=>g,JS_TIME:()=>T,MAX_TIMER_BUDGET:()=>a,REMAINING:()=>f,SPA_NODE:()=>h,START:()=>w,originalSetTimeout:()=>y});var n=r(5763);const i=r(3325).D.spa,o=["click","submit","keypress","keydown","keyup","change"],a=999,s="fn-start",c="fn-end",u="cb-start",d="api-ixn-",f="remaining",l="interaction",h="spaNode",g="jsonpNode",p="fetch-start",m="fetch-done",v="fetch-body-",b="jsonp-end",y=n.Yu.ST,w="-start",x="-end",A="-body",E="cb"+x,T="jsTime",_="fetch"},5938:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{W:()=>o});var n=r(5763),i=r(2177);class o{constructor(e,t,r){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.aggregator=t,this.ee=i.ee.get(e,(0,n.OP)(this.agentIdentifier).isolatedBacklog),this.featureName=r,this.blocked=!1}}},9144:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{j:()=>m});var n=r(3325),i=r(5763),o=r(5546),a=r(2177),s=r(7894),c=r(8e3),u=r(3960),d=r(385),f=r(50),l=r(3081),h=r(8632);function g(){const e=(0,h.gG)();["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease","addPageAction","setCurrentRouteName","setPageViewName","setCustomAttribute","interaction","noticeError","setUserId"].forEach((t=>{e[t]=function(){for(var r=arguments.length,n=new Array(r),i=0;i 1?r-1:0),i=1;i {e.exposed&&e.api[t]&&o.push(e.api[t](...n))})),o.length>1?o:o[0]}(t,...n)}}))}var p=r(2587);function m(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:{},m=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,v=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0,{init:b,info:y,loader_config:w,runtime:x={loaderType:m},exposed:A=!0}=t;const E=(0,h.gG)();y||(b=E.init,y=E.info,w=E.loader_config),(0,i.Dg)(e,b||{}),(0,i.GE)(e,w||{}),(0,i.sU)(e,x),y.jsAttributes??={},d.v6&&(y.jsAttributes.isWorker=!0),(0,i.CX)(e,y),g();const T=function(e,t){t||(0,c.R)(e,"api");const h={};var g=a.ee.get(e),p=g.get("tracer"),m="api-",v=m+"ixn-";function b(t,r,n,o){const a=(0,i.C5)(e);return null===r?delete a.jsAttributes[t]:(0,i.CX)(e,{...a,jsAttributes:{...a.jsAttributes,[t]:r}}),x(m,n,!0,o||null===r?"session":void 0)(t,r)}function y(){}["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease"].forEach((e=>h[e]=x(m,e,!0,"api"))),h.addPageAction=x(m,"addPageAction",!0,n.D.pageAction),h.setCurrentRouteName=x(m,"routeName",!0,n.D.spa),h.setPageViewName=function(t,r){if("string"==typeof t)return"/"!==t.charAt(0)&&(t="/"+t),(0,i.OP)(e).customTransaction=(r||"http://custom.transaction")+t,x(m,"setPageViewName",!0)()},h.setCustomAttribute=function(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2];if("string"==typeof e){if(["string","number"].includes(typeof t)||null===t)return b(e,t,"setCustomAttribute",r);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nNon-null value must be a string or number type, but a type of was provided."))}else(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nName must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.setUserId=function(e){if("string"==typeof e||null===e)return b("enduser.id",e,"setUserId",!0);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setUserId.\nNon-null value must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.interaction=function(){return(new y).get()};var w=y.prototype={createTracer:function(e,t){var r={},i=this,a="function"==typeof t;return(0,o.p)(v+"tracer",[(0,s.z)(),e,r],i,n.D.spa,g),function(){if(p.emit((a?"":"no-")+"fn-start",[(0,s.z)(),i,a],r),a)try{return t.apply(this,arguments)}catch(e){throw p.emit("fn-err",[arguments,this,"string"==typeof e?new Error(e):e],r),e}finally{p.emit("fn-end",[(0,s.z)()],r)}}}};function x(e,t,r,i){return function(){return(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/"+t+"/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),i&&(0,o.p)(e+t,[(0,s.z)(),...arguments],r?null:this,i,g),r?void 0:this}}function A(){r.e(439).then(r.bind(r,7438)).then((t=>{let{setAPI:r}=t;r(e),(0,c.L)(e,"api")})).catch((()=>(0,f.Z)("Downloading runtime APIs failed...")))}return["actionText","setName","setAttribute","save","ignore","onEnd","getContext","end","get"].forEach((e=>{w[e]=x(v,e,void 0,n.D.spa)})),h.noticeError=function(e,t){"string"==typeof e&&(e=new Error(e)),(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/noticeError/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),(0,o.p)("err",[e,(0,s.z)(),!1,t],void 0,n.D.jserrors,g)},d.il?(0,u.b)((()=>A()),!0):A(),h}(e,v);return(0,h.Qy)(e,T,"api"),(0,h.Qy)(e,A,"exposed"),(0,h.EZ)("activatedFeatures",p.T),T}},3325:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n,p:()=>i});const n={ajax:"ajax",jserrors:"jserrors",metrics:"metrics",pageAction:"page_action",pageViewEvent:"page_view_event",pageViewTiming:"page_view_timing",sessionReplay:"session_replay",sessionTrace:"session_trace",spa:"spa"},i={[n.pageViewEvent]:1,[n.pageViewTiming]:2,[n.metrics]:3,[n.jserrors]:4,[n.ajax]:5,[n.sessionTrace]:6,[n.pageAction]:7,[n.spa]:8,[n.sessionReplay]:9}}},n={};function i(e){var t=n[e];if(void 0!==t)return t.exports;var o=n[e]={exports:{}};return r[e](o,o.exports,i),o.exports}i.m=r,i.d=(e,t)=>{for(var r in t)i.o(t,r)&&!i.o(e,r)&&Object.defineProperty(e,r,{enumerable:!0,get:t[r]})},i.f={},i.e=e=>Promise.all(Object.keys(i.f).reduce(((t,r)=>(i.f[r](e,t),t)),[])),i.u=e=>(({78:"page_action-aggregate",147:"metrics-aggregate",242:"session-manager",317:"jserrors-aggregate",348:"page_view_timing-aggregate",412:"lazy-feature-loader",439:"async-api",538:"recorder",590:"session_replay-aggregate",675:"compressor",733:"session_trace-aggregate",786:"page_view_event-aggregate",873:"spa-aggregate",898:"ajax-aggregate"}[e]||e)+"."+{78:"ac76d497",147:"3dc53903",148:"1a20d5fe",242:"2a64278a",317:"49e41428",348:"bd6de33a",412:"2f55ce66",439:"30bd804e",538:"1b18459f",590:"cf0efb30",675:"ae9f91a8",733:"83105561",786:"06482edd",860:"03a8b7a5",873:"e6b09d52",898:"998ef92b"}[e]+"-1.236.0.min.js"),i.o=(e,t)=>Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(e,t),e={},t="NRBA:",i.l=(r,n,o,a)=>{if(e[r])e[r].push(n);else{var s,c;if(void 0!==o)for(var u=document.getElementsByTagName("script"),d=0;d {s.onerror=s.onload=null,clearTimeout(h);var i=e[r];if(delete e[r],s.parentNode&&s.parentNode.removeChild(s),i&&i.forEach((e=>e(n))),t)return t(n)},h=setTimeout(l.bind(null,void 0,{type:"timeout",target:s}),12e4);s.onerror=l.bind(null,s.onerror),s.onload=l.bind(null,s.onload),c&&document.head.appendChild(s)}},i.r=e=>{"undefined"!=typeof Symbol&&Symbol.toStringTag&&Object.defineProperty(e,Symbol.toStringTag,{value:"Module"}),Object.defineProperty(e,"__esModule",{value:!0})},i.j=364,i.p="https://js-agent.newrelic.com/",(()=>{var e={364:0,953:0};i.f.j=(t,r)=>{var n=i.o(e,t)?e[t]:void 0;if(0!==n)if(n)r.push(n[2]);else{var o=new Promise(((r,i)=>n=e[t]=[r,i]));r.push(n[2]=o);var a=i.p+i.u(t),s=new Error;i.l(a,(r=>{if(i.o(e,t)&&(0!==(n=e[t])&&(e[t]=void 0),n)){var o=r&&("load"===r.type?"missing":r.type),a=r&&r.target&&r.target.src;s.message="Loading chunk "+t+" failed.\n("+o+": "+a+")",s.name="ChunkLoadError",s.type=o,s.request=a,n[1](s)}}),"chunk-"+t,t)}};var t=(t,r)=>{var n,o,[a,s,c]=r,u=0;if(a.some((t=>0!==e[t]))){for(n in s)i.o(s,n)&&(i.m[n]=s[n]);if(c)c(i)}for(t&&t(r);u {i.r(o);var e=i(3325),t=i(5763);const r=Object.values(e.D);function n(e){const n={};return r.forEach((r=>{n[r]=function(e,r){return!1!==(0,t.Mt)(r,"".concat(e,".enabled"))}(r,e)})),n}var a=i(9144);var s=i(5546),c=i(385),u=i(8e3),d=i(5938),f=i(3960),l=i(50);class h extends d.W{constructor(e,t,r){let n=!(arguments.length>3&&void 0!==arguments[3])||arguments[3];super(e,t,r),this.auto=n,this.abortHandler,this.featAggregate,this.onAggregateImported,n&&(0,u.R)(e,r)}importAggregator(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:{};if(this.featAggregate||!this.auto)return;const r=c.il&&!0===(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"privacy.cookies_enabled");let n;this.onAggregateImported=new Promise((e=>{n=e}));const o=async()=>{let t;try{if(r){const{setupAgentSession:e}=await Promise.all([i.e(860),i.e(242)]).then(i.bind(i,3228));t=e(this.agentIdentifier)}}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("A problem occurred when starting up session manager. This page will not start or extend any session.",e)}try{if(!this.shouldImportAgg(this.featureName,t))return void(0,u.L)(this.agentIdentifier,this.featureName);const{lazyFeatureLoader:r}=await i.e(412).then(i.bind(i,8582)),{Aggregate:o}=await r(this.featureName,"aggregate");this.featAggregate=new o(this.agentIdentifier,this.aggregator,e),n(!0)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Downloading and initializing ".concat(this.featureName," failed..."),e),this.abortHandler?.(),n(!1)}};c.il?(0,f.b)((()=>o()),!0):o()}shouldImportAgg(r,n){return r!==e.D.sessionReplay||!1!==(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"session_trace.enabled")&&(!!n?.isNew||!!n?.state.sessionReplay)}}var g=i(7633),p=i(7894);class m extends h{static featureName=g.t9;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];if(super(r,n,g.t9,i),("undefined"==typeof PerformanceNavigationTiming||c.Tt)&&"undefined"!=typeof PerformanceTiming){const n=(0,t.OP)(r);n[g.Dz]=Math.max(Date.now()-n.offset,0),(0,f.K)((()=>n[g.qw]=Math.max((0,p.z)()-n[g.Dz],0))),(0,f.b)((()=>{const t=(0,p.z)();n[g.OJ]=Math.max(t-n[g.Dz],0),(0,s.p)("timing",["load",t],void 0,e.D.pageViewTiming,this.ee)}))}this.importAggregator()}}var v=i(1117),b=i(1284);class y extends v.w{constructor(e){super(e),this.aggregatedData={}}store(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,r,i);return o.metrics=function(e,t){t||(t={count:0});return t.count+=1,(0,b.D)(e,(function(e,r){t[e]=w(r,t[e])})),t}(n,o.metrics),o}merge(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,n,i);if(o.metrics){var a=o.metrics;a.count+=r.count,(0,b.D)(r,(function(e,t){if("count"!==e){var n=a[e],i=r[e];i&&!i.c?a[e]=w(i.t,n):a[e]=function(e,t){if(!t)return e;t.c||(t=x(t.t));return t.min=Math.min(e.min,t.min),t.max=Math.max(e.max,t.max),t.t+=e.t,t.sos+=e.sos,t.c+=e.c,t}(i,a[e])}}))}else o.metrics=r}storeMetric(e,t,r,n){var i=this.getBucket(e,t,r);return i.stats=w(n,i.stats),i}getBucket(e,t,r,n){this.aggregatedData[e]||(this.aggregatedData[e]={});var i=this.aggregatedData[e][t];return i||(i=this.aggregatedData[e][t]={params:r||{}},n&&(i.custom=n)),i}get(e,t){return t?this.aggregatedData[e]&&this.aggregatedData[e][t]:this.aggregatedData[e]}take(e){for(var t={},r="",n=!1,i=0;i t.max&&(t.max=e),e 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,r,j.t,n),c.il&&((0,t.OP)(e).initHidden=Boolean("hidden"===document.visibilityState),(0,N.N)((()=>(0,s.p)("docHidden",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee)),!0),(0,O.bP)("pagehide",(()=>(0,s.p)("winPagehide",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee))),this.importAggregator())}}var P=i(3081);class C extends h{static featureName=P.t9;constructor(e,t){let r=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,P.t9,r),this.importAggregator()}}var R,I=i(2210),k=i(1214),H=i(2177),L={};try{R=localStorage.getItem("__nr_flags").split(","),console&&"function"==typeof console.log&&(L.console=!0,-1!==R.indexOf("dev")&&(L.dev=!0),-1!==R.indexOf("nr_dev")&&(L.nrDev=!0))}catch(e){}function z(e){try{L.console&&z(e)}catch(e){}}L.nrDev&&H.ee.on("internal-error",(function(e){z(e.stack)})),L.dev&&H.ee.on("fn-err",(function(e,t,r){z(r.stack)})),L.dev&&(z("NR AGENT IN DEVELOPMENT MODE"),z("flags: "+(0,b.D)(L,(function(e,t){return e})).join(", ")));var M=i(6660);class B extends h{static featureName=M.t;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,M.t,i),this.skipNext=0;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}const o=this;o.ee.on("fn-start",(function(e,t,r){o.abortHandler&&(o.skipNext+=1)})),o.ee.on("fn-err",(function(t,r,n){o.abortHandler&&!n[M.A]&&((0,I.X)(n,M.A,(function(){return!0})),this.thrown=!0,(0,s.p)("err",[n,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee))})),o.ee.on("fn-end",(function(){o.abortHandler&&!this.thrown&&o.skipNext>0&&(o.skipNext-=1)})),o.ee.on("internal-error",(function(t){(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee)})),this.origOnerror=c._A.onerror,c._A.onerror=this.onerrorHandler.bind(this),c._A.addEventListener("unhandledrejection",(t=>{const r=function(e){let t="Unhandled Promise Rejection: ";if(e instanceof Error)try{return e.message=t+e.message,e}catch(t){return e}if(void 0===e)return new Error(t);try{return new Error(t+(0,D.P)(e))}catch(e){return new Error(t)}}(t.reason);(0,s.p)("err",[r,(0,p.z)(),!1,{unhandledPromiseRejection:1}],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}),(0,O.m$)(!1,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),(0,k.gy)(this.ee),(0,k.BV)(this.ee),(0,k.em)(this.ee),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}onerrorHandler(t,r,n,i,o){"function"==typeof this.origOnerror&&this.origOnerror(...arguments);try{this.skipNext?this.skipNext-=1:(0,s.p)("err",[o||new F(t,r,n),(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(t){try{(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(e){}}return!1}}function F(e,t,r){this.message=e||"Uncaught error with no additional information",this.sourceURL=t,this.line=r}let U=1;const q="nr@id";function G(e){const t=typeof e;return!e||"object"!==t&&"function"!==t?-1:e===c._A?0:(0,I.X)(e,q,(function(){return U++}))}function V(e){if("string"==typeof e&&e.length)return e.length;if("object"==typeof e){if("undefined"!=typeof ArrayBuffer&&e instanceof ArrayBuffer&&e.byteLength)return e.byteLength;if("undefined"!=typeof Blob&&e instanceof Blob&&e.size)return e.size;if(!("undefined"!=typeof FormData&&e instanceof FormData))try{return(0,D.P)(e).length}catch(e){return}}}var X=i(7243);class W{constructor(e){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.generateTracePayload=this.generateTracePayload.bind(this),this.shouldGenerateTrace=this.shouldGenerateTrace.bind(this)}generateTracePayload(e){if(!this.shouldGenerateTrace(e))return null;var r=(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier);if(!r)return null;var n=(r.accountID||"").toString()||null,i=(r.agentID||"").toString()||null,o=(r.trustKey||"").toString()||null;if(!n||!i)return null;var a=(0,_.M)(),s=(0,_.Ht)(),c=Date.now(),u={spanId:a,traceId:s,timestamp:c};return(e.sameOrigin||this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useTraceContextHeadersForCors())&&(u.traceContextParentHeader=this.generateTraceContextParentHeader(a,s),u.traceContextStateHeader=this.generateTraceContextStateHeader(a,c,n,i,o)),(e.sameOrigin&&!this.excludeNewrelicHeader()||!e.sameOrigin&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useNewrelicHeaderForCors())&&(u.newrelicHeader=this.generateTraceHeader(a,s,c,n,i,o)),u}generateTraceContextParentHeader(e,t){return"00-"+t+"-"+e+"-01"}generateTraceContextStateHeader(e,t,r,n,i){return i+"@nr=0-1-"+r+"-"+n+"-"+e+"----"+t}generateTraceHeader(e,t,r,n,i,o){if(!("function"==typeof c._A?.btoa))return null;var a={v:[0,1],d:{ty:"Browser",ac:n,ap:i,id:e,tr:t,ti:r}};return o&&n!==o&&(a.d.tk=o),btoa((0,D.P)(a))}shouldGenerateTrace(e){return this.isDtEnabled()&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)}isAllowedOrigin(e){var r=!1,n={};if((0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"distributed_tracing")&&(n=(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier).distributed_tracing),e.sameOrigin)r=!0;else if(n.allowed_origins instanceof Array)for(var i=0;i 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,Z.t,i),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(this.dt=new W(r),this.handler=(e,t,r,n)=>(0,s.p)(e,t,r,n,this.ee),(0,k.u5)(this.ee),(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),function(r,n,i,o){function a(e){var t=this;t.totalCbs=0,t.called=0,t.cbTime=0,t.end=E,t.ended=!1,t.xhrGuids={},t.lastSize=null,t.loadCaptureCalled=!1,t.params=this.params||{},t.metrics=this.metrics||{},e.addEventListener("load",(function(r){_(t,e)}),(0,O.m$)(!1)),c.IF||e.addEventListener("progress",(function(e){t.lastSize=e.loaded}),(0,O.m$)(!1))}function s(e){this.params={method:e[0]},T(this,e[1]),this.metrics={}}function u(e,n){var i=(0,t.DL)(r);i.xpid&&this.sameOrigin&&n.setRequestHeader("X-NewRelic-ID",i.xpid);var a=o.generateTracePayload(this.parsedOrigin);if(a){var s=!1;a.newrelicHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("newrelic",a.newrelicHeader),s=!0),a.traceContextParentHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("traceparent",a.traceContextParentHeader),a.traceContextStateHeader&&n.setRequestHeader("tracestate",a.traceContextStateHeader),s=!0),s&&(this.dt=a)}}function d(e,t){var r=this.metrics,i=e[0],o=this;if(r&&i){var a=V(i);a&&(r.txSize=a)}this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.listener=function(e){try{"abort"!==e.type||o.loadCaptureCalled||(o.params.aborted=!0),("load"!==e.type||o.called===o.totalCbs&&(o.onloadCalled||"function"!=typeof t.onload)&&"function"==typeof o.end)&&o.end(t)}catch(e){try{n.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}};for(var s=0;s 1?e[1]=i:e.push(i)}else e[0]&&e[0].headers&&s(e[0].headers,n)&&(this.dt=n);function s(e,t){var r=!1;return t.newrelicHeader&&(e.set("newrelic",t.newrelicHeader),r=!0),t.traceContextParentHeader&&(e.set("traceparent",t.traceContextParentHeader),t.traceContextStateHeader&&e.set("tracestate",t.traceContextStateHeader),r=!0),r}}function x(e,t){this.params={},this.metrics={},this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.dt=t,e.length>=1&&(this.target=e[0]),e.length>=2&&(this.opts=e[1]);var r,n=this.opts||{},i=this.target;"string"==typeof i?r=i:"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof Y?r=i.url:c._A?.URL&&"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof URL&&(r=i.href),T(this,r);var o=(""+(i&&i instanceof Y&&i.method||n.method||"GET")).toUpperCase();this.params.method=o,this.txSize=V(n.body)||0}function A(t,r){var n;this.endTime=(0,p.z)(),this.params||(this.params={}),this.params.status=r?r.status:0,"string"==typeof this.rxSize&&this.rxSize.length>0&&(n=+this.rxSize);var o={txSize:this.txSize,rxSize:n,duration:(0,p.z)()-this.startTime};i("xhr",[this.params,o,this.startTime,this.endTime,"fetch"],this,e.D.ajax)}function E(t){var r=this.params,n=this.metrics;if(!this.ended){this.ended=!0;for(var o=0;o 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,we.t,r),this.importAggregator()}}new class{constructor(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:(0,_.ky)(16);c._A?(this.agentIdentifier=t,this.sharedAggregator=new y({agentIdentifier:this.agentIdentifier}),this.features={},this.desiredFeatures=new Set(e.features||[]),this.desiredFeatures.add(m),Object.assign(this,(0,a.j)(this.agentIdentifier,e,e.loaderType||"agent")),this.start()):(0,l.Z)("Failed to initial the agent. Could not determine the runtime environment.")}get config(){return{info:(0,t.C5)(this.agentIdentifier),init:(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier),loader_config:(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier),runtime:(0,t.OP)(this.agentIdentifier)}}start(){const t="features";try{const r=n(this.agentIdentifier),i=[...this.desiredFeatures];i.sort(((t,r)=>e.p[t.featureName]-e.p[r.featureName])),i.forEach((t=>{if(r[t.featureName]||t.featureName===e.D.pageViewEvent){const n=function(t){switch(t){case e.D.ajax:return[e.D.jserrors];case e.D.sessionTrace:return[e.D.ajax,e.D.pageViewEvent];case e.D.sessionReplay:return[e.D.sessionTrace];case e.D.pageViewTiming:return[e.D.pageViewEvent];default:return[]}}(t.featureName);n.every((e=>r[e]))||(0,l.Z)("".concat(t.featureName," is enabled but one or more dependent features has been disabled (").concat((0,D.P)(n),"). This may cause unintended consequences or missing data...")),this.features[t.featureName]=new t(this.agentIdentifier,this.sharedAggregator)}})),(0,T.Qy)(this.agentIdentifier,this.features,t)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Failed to initialize all enabled instrument classes (agent aborted) -",e);for(const e in this.features)this.features[e].abortHandler?.();const r=(0,T.fP)();return delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.api,delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.[t],delete this.sharedAggregator,r.ee?.abort(),delete r.ee?.get(this.agentIdentifier),!1}}}({features:[J,m,S,class extends h{static featureName=oe;constructor(t,r){if(super(t,r,oe,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;const n=this.ee;let i;(0,k.QU)(n),this.eventsEE=(0,k.em)(n),this.eventsEE.on(se,(function(e,t){this.bstStart=(0,p.z)()})),this.eventsEE.on(ae,(function(t,r){(0,s.p)("bst",[t[0],r,this.bstStart,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),n.on(ce+ne,(function(e){this.time=(0,p.z)(),this.startPath=location.pathname+location.hash})),n.on(ce+ie,(function(t){(0,s.p)("bstHist",[location.pathname+location.hash,this.startPath,this.time],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)}));try{i=new PerformanceObserver((t=>{const r=t.getEntries();(0,s.p)(te,[r],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),i.observe({type:re,buffered:!0})}catch(e){}this.importAggregator({resourceObserver:i})}},C,xe,B,class extends h{static featureName=de;constructor(e,r){if(super(e,r,de,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;if(!(0,t.OP)(e).xhrWrappable)return;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}let n,i=0;const o=this.ee.get("tracer"),a=(0,k._L)(this.ee),s=(0,k.Lg)(this.ee),u=(0,k.BV)(this.ee),d=(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),f=this.ee.get("events"),l=(0,k.u5)(this.ee),h=(0,k.QU)(this.ee),g=(0,k.Gm)(this.ee);function m(e,t){h.emit("newURL",[""+window.location,t])}function v(){i++,n=window.location.hash,this[ve]=(0,p.z)()}function b(){i--,window.location.hash!==n&&m(0,!0);var e=(0,p.z)();this[pe]=~~this[pe]+e-this[ve],this[ye]=e}function y(e,t){e.on(t,(function(){this[t]=(0,p.z)()}))}this.ee.on(ve,v),s.on(be,v),a.on(be,v),this.ee.on(ye,b),s.on(ge,b),a.on(ge,b),this.ee.buffer([ve,ye,"xhr-resolved"],this.featureName),f.buffer([ve],this.featureName),u.buffer(["setTimeout"+le,"clearTimeout"+fe,ve],this.featureName),d.buffer([ve,"new-xhr","send-xhr"+fe],this.featureName),l.buffer([me+fe,me+"-done",me+he+fe,me+he+le],this.featureName),h.buffer(["newURL"],this.featureName),g.buffer([ve],this.featureName),s.buffer(["propagate",be,ge,"executor-err","resolve"+fe],this.featureName),o.buffer([ve,"no-"+ve],this.featureName),a.buffer(["new-jsonp","cb-start","jsonp-error","jsonp-end"],this.featureName),y(l,me+fe),y(l,me+"-done"),y(a,"new-jsonp"),y(a,"jsonp-end"),y(a,"cb-start"),h.on("pushState-end",m),h.on("replaceState-end",m),window.addEventListener("hashchange",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("load",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("popstate",(function(){m(0,i>1)}),(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}}],loaderType:"spa"})})(),window.NRBA=o})(); window.jQuery || document.write(' ') CKEDITOR_BASEPATH='https://f1000research.com/js/vendor/ckeditor/' window.reactTheme = 'research'; window.MathJax = { CommonHTML: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, 'HTML-CSS': { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, SVG: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, AuthorInit: function() { MathJax.Hub.Register.MessageHook('End Process', function () { let timeout = false; // holder for timeout id const delay = 250; // delay after event is "complete" to run callback const reflowMath = function() { const dispFormulas = document.querySelectorAll('.disp-formula.panel'); if (!dispFormulas) { return; } for (const dispFormula of dispFormulas) { const child = dispFormula.querySelector('.MathJax_Preview').nextSibling.firstChild; const isMultiline = MathJax.Hub.getAllJax(dispFormula)[0].root.isMultiline; if (dispFormula.offsetWidth < child.offsetWidth || isMultiline) { MathJax.Hub.Queue(['Rerender', MathJax.Hub, dispFormula]); } } }; window.addEventListener('resize', function() { clearTimeout(timeout); // clear the timeout timeout = setTimeout(reflowMath, delay); // start timing for event "completion" }); }); }, }; if (window.location.hash == '#_=_'){ window.location = window.location.href.split('#')[0] } !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function() {n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)} ;if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script','https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '1641728616063202'); fbq('track', "PixelInitialized", {}); (function(h,o,t,j,a,r){ h.hj=h.hj||function(){(h.hj.q=h.hj.q||[]).push(arguments)}; h._hjSettings={hjid:2318163,hjsv:6}; a=o.getElementsByTagName('head')[0]; r=o.createElement('script');r.async=1; r.src=t+h._hjSettings.hjid+j+h._hjSettings.hjsv; a.appendChild(r); })(window,document,'https://static.hotjar.com/c/hotjar-','.js?sv='); search file_upload Submit your research search menu close search Browse Gateways & Collections How to Publish Submit your Research My Submissions Article Guidelines Article Guidelines (New Versions) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines Open Data and Accessible Source Materials Guidelines (HSS) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines (PSE) Prepublication Checks Production Process Posters and Slides Guidelines Document Guidelines Article Processing Charges Peer Review Finding Article Reviewers About How it Works For Reviewers Our Advisors Policies Glossary FAQs For Developers Newsroom Contact My Research Submissions Content and Tracking Alerts My Details Sign In file_upload Submit your research { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "ScholarlyArticle", "mainEntityOfPage": { "@type": "WebPage", "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/15-515" }, "headline": "Cataloguing and theorising open research practices in the arts, humanities and social sciences: Problematising...", "datePublished": "2026-04-15T06:03:28", "dateModified": "2026-04-15T06:03:28", "author": [ { "@type": "Person", "name": "Jenni Adams" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Miranda Barnes" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Samuel Moore" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Stephen Pinfield" } ], "publisher": { "@type": "Organization", "name": "F1000Research", "logo": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 480, "width": 60 } }, "image": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 1200, "width": 150 }, "description": " Background Discourses of ‘Open Science’ have been criticised for privileging the quantitative and positivist methodologies of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) research at the expense of qualitative, interpretive, critical-theoretical, practice-based, and other forms of research more common in the arts, humanities and social sciences (AHSS). Methods In this article, which emerged from a work component of the MORPHSS (Materialising Open Research Practices in the Humanities and Social Sciences) project, we document the process, outcomes and practical implications of work to develop a catalogue of open research practices in these disciplines, which proceeded via a wide-ranging literature review followed by targeted desk research and a conceptual mapping exercise. Results Key findings include the fact that open research practices in AHSS are diverse, extending beyond the suite of practices emphasised within dominant accounts of Open Science. We identify among these practices a range of forms of openness including those focused on mobilising the involvement and expert knowledge of diverse participants and communities. Conclusions Presenting a typology of forms of openness in AHSS that is consistent with the epistemic logics of these disciplines, we conclude that openness in AHSS is highly situated and context-dependent, as well as resisting quantification and binary measurement. Drawing on these conclusions, we offer a series of recommendations for institutions, open research monitoring initiatives, funders, publishers, learned societies and researchers to enhance the inclusivity of their policy and practice around openness. " } { "@context": "http://schema.org", "@type": "BreadcrumbList", "itemListElement": [ { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "1", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/", "name": "Home" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "2", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/browse/articles", "name": "Browse" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "3", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/15-515/v1", "name": "Cataloguing and theorising open research practices in the arts, humanities..." } } ] } Home Browse Cataloguing and theorising open research practices in the arts, humanities... ALL Metrics - Views Downloads Get PDF Get XML Cite How to cite this article Adams J, Barnes M, Moore S and Pinfield S. Cataloguing and theorising open research practices in the arts, humanities and social sciences: Problematising and diversifying ‘Open Science’ [version 1; peer review: 1 approved] . F1000Research 2026, 15 :515 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.178353.1 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Close Copy Citation Details Export Export Citation Sciwheel EndNote Ref. Manager Bibtex ProCite Sente EXPORT Select a format first Track Share ▬ ✚ Research Article Cataloguing and theorising open research practices in the arts, humanities and social sciences: Problematising and diversifying ‘Open Science’ [version 1; peer review: 1 approved] Jenni Adams https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2420-0763 1 , Miranda Barnes https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7740-4896 2,3 , Samuel Moore https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0504-2897 2,3 , Stephen Pinfield https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4696-764X 1 Jenni Adams https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2420-0763 1 , Miranda Barnes https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7740-4896 2,3 , Samuel Moore https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0504-2897 2,3 , Stephen Pinfield https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4696-764X 1 PUBLISHED 15 Apr 2026 Author details Author details 1 University of Sheffield School of Information, Journalism and Communication, Sheffield, UK 2 Cambridge University Library, Cambridge, UK 3 Cambridge Digital Humanities, Cambridge, UK Jenni Adams Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Miranda Barnes Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Samuel Moore Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Stephen Pinfield Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing OPEN PEER REVIEW DETAILS REVIEWER STATUS This article is included in the Research on Research, Policy & Culture gateway. Abstract Background Discourses of ‘Open Science’ have been criticised for privileging the quantitative and positivist methodologies of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) research at the expense of qualitative, interpretive, critical-theoretical, practice-based, and other forms of research more common in the arts, humanities and social sciences (AHSS). Methods In this article, which emerged from a work component of the MORPHSS (Materialising Open Research Practices in the Humanities and Social Sciences) project, we document the process, outcomes and practical implications of work to develop a catalogue of open research practices in these disciplines, which proceeded via a wide-ranging literature review followed by targeted desk research and a conceptual mapping exercise. Results Key findings include the fact that open research practices in AHSS are diverse, extending beyond the suite of practices emphasised within dominant accounts of Open Science. We identify among these practices a range of forms of openness including those focused on mobilising the involvement and expert knowledge of diverse participants and communities. Conclusions Presenting a typology of forms of openness in AHSS that is consistent with the epistemic logics of these disciplines, we conclude that openness in AHSS is highly situated and context-dependent, as well as resisting quantification and binary measurement. Drawing on these conclusions, we offer a series of recommendations for institutions, open research monitoring initiatives, funders, publishers, learned societies and researchers to enhance the inclusivity of their policy and practice around openness. READ ALL READ LESS Keywords open research, Open Science, humanities, social sciences, metaresearch Corresponding Author(s) Jenni Adams ( [email protected] ) Close Corresponding author: Jenni Adams Competing interests: Non-financial competing interests JA was a contributor to the UKRN Open Research Indicators project mentioned in brief in this article (Jacobs et al., 2026). SP is an Editor of MetaROR (MetaResearch Open Review). Grant information: Wellcome Trust (314438/Z/24/Z), the AHRC and the Research England Development Fund (there are no grant numbers for AHRC and RED). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Copyright: © 2026 Adams J et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. How to cite: Adams J, Barnes M, Moore S and Pinfield S. Cataloguing and theorising open research practices in the arts, humanities and social sciences: Problematising and diversifying ‘Open Science’ [version 1; peer review: 1 approved] . F1000Research 2026, 15 :515 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.178353.1 ) First published: 15 Apr 2026, 15 :515 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.178353.1 ) Latest published: 15 Apr 2026, 15 :515 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.178353.1 ) Introduction Discourses of ‘Open Science’ (OS) have been criticised for their ‘narrow epistemologies’ ( Ross-Hellauer et al., 2022 , 16) which privilege the quantitative and positivist methodologies of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) research at the expense of qualitative, interpretive, critical-theoretical, practice-based, and other forms of research more common in the arts, humanities and qualitative social sciences. Where the presence of OS practices such as pre-registration and open data and code is used as an evaluative measure, this consequently carries the risk of marginalising and undervaluing the work of arts, humanities and social sciences (AHSS) scholars relative to peers in STEM on the basis of an inappropriate and epistemically incongruent set of criteria. This phenomenon, which Leonelli (2023, 39) considers an instance of epistemic injustice, has prompted calls to reframe open research in ways more consistent with AHSS practices, most notably in calls for an ‘open humanities’ ( Arthur and Hearn, 2024 ; Knöchelmann, 2019 ) and emerging advocacy around open qualitative research (e.g. Prosser et al., 2023 ; Steltenpohl et al., 2025 ). Nevertheless, what remains to take place is a systematic, wide-ranging effort to survey and document a broad array of open practices across AHSS disciplines and to theorise the forms of openness these embody. In this article, which reports work undertaken as part of the Materialising Open Research Practices in the Humanities and Social Sciences (MORPHSS) project, we document the process and outcomes of efforts to achieve this by creating a catalogue of open research practices in AHSS. We highlight these practices’ manifestations of forms of openness that are under-emphasised in the dominant discourse of Open Science and present a series of recommendations for institutions, open research monitoring initiatives, funders, publishers, learned societies and researchers to enhance the inclusivity of their policy and practice around openness. Background Problematising ‘Open Science’ The term ‘open research’ (OR) 1 refers to practices aimed at making the processes and outputs of research more widely available. Its aims and purposes include addressing knowledge inequities; facilitating collaboration to address social and scientific problems; democratising the research process by reimagining the boundaries between the academy and society; and enabling enhanced scrutiny of findings ( Beigel, 2024 , 1; Cole et al., 2023 , 2; Munafò, 2016 ). The 2021 UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science reflects this diversity of aims and mechanisms: [O]pen science is defined as an inclusive construct that combines various movements and practices aiming to make multilingual scientific knowledge openly available, accessible and reusable for everyone, to increase scientific collaborations and sharing of information for the benefits of science and society, and to open the processes of scientific knowledge creation, evaluation and communication to societal actors beyond the traditional scientific community. It comprises all scientific disciplines and aspects of scholarly practices, including basic and applied sciences, natural and social sciences and the humanities, and it builds on the following key pillars: open scientific knowledge, open science infrastructures, science communication, open engagement of societal actors and open dialogue with other knowledge systems. (2021, II.6) Nevertheless, the concept of ‘Open Science’ (OS) as it is mobilised in practice, especially in Global North contexts, fails to align with this inclusive vision, instead placing emphasis largely on the pillars of ‘open scientific knowledge’ and ‘open science infrastructures’ and on the purpose of reproducibility as a vehicle for research reform. As Albornoz et al. note: Most mainstream narratives about Open Science, emerging particularly from Europe and North America, envision open science as a system of technology-driven tools and processes that, when utilised, are assumed to accelerate scientific discoveries, improve transparency and reproducibility of research […] and improve accountability to the scientific community as well as to the public. (2017, 294) This efficiency-driven, reproducibility-focused approach 2 to openness fails to address global inequities in access and participation, often exacerbating inequalities ( Dutta et al., 2021 , 807; Hillyer et al., 2017 ). Moreover, its emphasis on the availability of a standardised set of outputs as a means to verify and incentivise reproducibility prioritises the quantitative and positivist forms of inquiry within which these outputs and aims are methodologically congruent above other forms of knowledge creation – humanistic, qualitative, critical-theoretical, archival, arts-based, to name but a few. As Steltenpohl et al. (2023) note, ‘[w]ithin the open science movement, discussions around rigor and transparency have largely come from a positivist, quantitative perspective that focuses on the transparency of outputs, namely open data, open materials, open code, and open access to manuscripts’, with the result that ‘[o]pen science guidelines fail to account for research based on epistemologies that are not strictly positivist and methods that are not strictly quantitative in nature’ (n.p., n.p.). This would be less problematic were such expectations not universalised as a default model of openness applicable to all forms of research ( Bazzoli, 2022 ). Such universalisation is evident in national and funder open research policies, especially in the Global North, which tend to focus largely on open access and open data at the expense of other open practices ( Albornoz et al., 2018 ; for examples, see Bulock, 2023 ; Murphy and Thomas, 2023 ; UKRI, 2025 ). The centring of open data suggests a focus firstly on practices that support reproducibility/replicability, and secondly on disciplines for which this practice is more straightforward and achievable, while conventional framings of open access stipulations likewise foreground STEM research. Publications are assumed to be journal articles emerging from funded projects, where payment of article processing charges (APCs) is both established and feasible. The need to enable open circulation of knowledge produced in AHSS projects – often unfunded and resulting in monographs – is underemphasised. The exclusion of broader dimensions of open research such as the open engagement of societal actors and knowledge systems is further underscored by the findings of a 2025 study of EDI and public participation in Open Science policy documents across Europe and the Americas ( Chtena et al., 2025 ), which noted that Open Science policies prioritise the accessibility of outputs over aspects of openness aimed at equity and inclusion. If AHSS disciplines are covered in such policy approaches, there is often an assumption that they possess straightforward equivalents to the data, publications and other outputs created in STEM and are able to share these in comparable ways. Such universalisation of expectations is also evident in Open Science guidance and advocacy materials such as the apparently discipline-neutral TOP guidelines , which aim to inform journal policy on openness yet focus primarily on transparency around materials, data and code. The Center for Open Science, the organisation behind TOP, also provides a discipline-neutral Open Science Badges initiative that encourages journals to recognise authors for use of just three open practices: pre-registration, open data and open materials. Given the precarious and underfunded nature of AHSS research, especially in the humanities, the positivist and quantitative orientation of dominant conceptions of OS risks exacerbating existing knowledge hierarchies and tangibly disadvantaging scholars in the arts, humanities and qualitative social sciences through their subjection to inappropriate forms of evaluation ( Penders et al., 2019 , 2; Ross-Hellauer et al., 2022 , 16; Ulpts, 2024 , 2). The disjunction between the framing of Open Science expectations as universally applicable and their uneven relevance across a diverse range of research practices might be one reason for what are often regarded as limited levels of engagement with open research across the humanities and social sciences (e.g. Broadhead and Gonnet, 2025 ; Ferreira and Borges, 2022 ; Hardwicke et al., 2020 ; Jeng and He, 2022 ; Quigley, 2021 ; Robinson-Garcia et al., 2020 ; Severin et al., 2018 ). In requiring adherence to stipulations and goals that may lack relevance to their knowledge practices, and in implicitly denying the legitimacy of forms of knowledge work outside these frameworks, OS discourse risks alienating researchers in the arts, humanities and qualitative social sciences, potentially to the extent of discouraging engagement with the broader possibilities of open research. Introducing MORPHSS The Materialising Open Research Practices in the Humanities and Social Sciences (MORPHSS ) project sets out to address precisely this under-recognition of forms of openness appropriate to AHSS research within dominant OS paradigms. Such work could be framed in a variety of different ways – e.g. through a focus on methodologies, epistemic cultures ( Knorr-Cetina, 1999 ) or Leonelli’s more granular ‘systems of practice’ ( 2023 , 31). However, we frame the project in disciplinary terms for pragmatic reasons: disciplinary categories are central in the circulatory and regulatory mechanisms of research, as well as accommodating a diversity of practice we would not wish to overlook in a focus on, for example, interpretive or qualitative approaches. We nevertheless acknowledge that ‘AHSS’ includes some areas of research – namely, the quantitative social sciences and computational digital humanities – that are already well-catered for within dominant OS paradigms. These areas are consequently less emphasised within this work. In terms of the component disciplines of AHSS, we drew in our literature searches (below) on the UK’s Research Excellence Framework (REF) list of units of assessment for the arts, humanities and social sciences, 3 though in practice we recognise some areas of fluidity around disciplines that are included (e.g. geography, which in some instances might be either a social or physical science) and excluded (e.g. psychology and public health, qualitative work in which has experienced similar challenges in terms of misalignment with quantitative OS discourses). 4 It is also important to recognise considerable variation within disciplines. The present article documents the process and outcomes of work undertaken by MORPHSS to catalogue open research practices in the arts, humanities and (qualitative) social sciences. In this project component, we sought to map areas of traction of and resistance to existing OS discourses within AHSS disciplines, with a particular focus on identifying and cataloguing open practices appropriate to AHSS methodologies. Our research questions were: ● Where, how, and how successfully are existing discourses of ‘open research’ / ‘Open Science’ applied to research practices in the arts, humanities and social sciences? (RQ1) ● How and from what perspectives is such an application resisted? (RQ2) ● What existing, emergent and experimental open research practices are taking place in the arts, humanities and social sciences? (RQ3) ○ What forms of openness exist in AHSS? ○ How are these specific to the research types and disciplines concerned? How can these add plurality and diversity to our broader concepts of ‘openness’ in research? Exploring these questions via a literature review followed by targeted research, we sought to create a catalogue of open AHSS practices that can be used as a starting point in ongoing explorations of openness in these areas. This article documents and reflects on the catalogue's creation before examining the forms and practices of openness we identified. Methodology The core research team for this project comprised researchers and professionals at research-intensive universities in the UK. Our areas of expertise are scholarly communications and metaresearch, literature and creative writing, publishing, digital humanities and information science. Our methodological approaches include qualitative, mixed-methods, critical-theoretical and arts-practice research. We sought an entry point onto the intersection of research openness and AHSS via a literature review that combined systematic search strategies with more exploratory approaches. These processes are detailed in full in our openly available Literature Review Protocol ( Adams et al., 2026b ); a summary is below. Systematic search strategies We searched the following bibliographic databases for academic articles, monographs, edited collections, preprints, conference proceedings and grey literature: Scopus, Web of Science, Dimensions, Humanities Index, MLA International Bibliography, ASSIA (Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts); LISA (Library and Information Science Abstracts) and Overton, in addition to the preprint repositories OSF Preprints, SSRN and preprints.org . Searches targeted the co-occurence of terms associated with open research and disciplinary signifiers, with the latter considered at both macro (e.g. humanities, social sciences, AHSS, HASS, HSS) and more granular levels. Terms relating to specific disciplines (e.g. linguistics, education, social work) were drawn from the UK’s REF list of units of assessment for the arts, humanities and social sciences. An overview of the search terms used can be found in Table 1 ; further information on relevance criteria is available in the Literature Review Protocol. Terms from the vocabulary of Open Science were included to assess its traction in AHSS as well as capturing instances of oppositional reframing. Terms relating to open access were not included in order to focus primarily on areas of open practice in AHSS that are not already well-documented. 5 While the scope of material sought was not limited by geographical area, it was restricted to the English language to reflect the research team’s expertise. Table 1. Overview of key systematic searches. Key search terms (adapted to each individual database) Title “Open research” OR “open science” OR reproducib* OR “open data” OR “data sharing” OR “open software” OR “open code” OR “open practice” or “open practise” OR preregistration OR pre-registration OR preprint* AND Humanities OR “Social Sciences” OR “AHSS” OR “HSS” OR “HASS” OR [specific disciplines, terms taken from REF Units of Assessment] Parameters: 2010<; disciplinary parameters (AHSS disciplines) where available. Title – abstract – keywords “Open humanities” OR “open social sciences” Parameters: 2010<; disciplinary parameters (AHSS disciplines) where available. Title – abstract – keywords – full text “Open research” AND (method* OR practice*) AND Humanities OR “social sciences” or “AHSS” OR “HSS” OR “HASS” OR [specific disciplines, terms taken from REF Units of Assessment]) Parameters: 2010<; disciplinary parameters (AHSS disciplines) where available; proximity operators (w/3) for the co-occurence of the first two components where available. Title – abstract – keywords “Open research” OR “open science” OR reproducib* OR replica* OR transparen* AND “Epistemic diversity” OR “epistemic plural*” Exploratory strategies Acknowledging the limitations of systematic search strategies alone ( Greenhalgh and Peacock, 2005 ), especially in the context of potentially emergent practices and approaches which may not be explicitly framed within a vocabulary of open research, we coupled these searches with a series of more exploratory approaches. Specific exploratory strategies included iterative/evolving search strategies, citation exploration, targeted engagement with sources of different media types (e.g. podcasts, film) and serendipitous discovery. These strategies also included selecting a small number of journals focused on qualitative/AHSS methods, digital publishing and digital preservation and scanning the contents of issues over the last 10 years for relevant material. 6 They also included direct searches for grey literature by organisation, including UNESCO , publishers and funders, UKRN , RDA , OASPA , ALPSP , JISC , DARIAH , OPERAS , FAIRsharing , Open Access Tracking Project ( OATP ), Science Europe and more. Sifting, evaluation and annotation process Results were exported into a shared Zotero library and duplicates merged/removed. During sifting, we reviewed abstracts/titles and classified items using tags as relevant/not relevant according to agreed criteria. Relevant items were coded and tagged by discipline/subdiscipline and practice, where applicable. The full text of items deemed relevant was read and documented in an annotated bibliography. We present a record of the number of items identified through systematic search strategies in Figure 1 . An additional 51 items were identified via the process of journal scanning. Figure 1. Flow diagram of systematic search process. Legend: The figure details the number of academic and grey literature sources identified, screened and reviewed as part of the systematic search process for this study. Identification and documentation of practices During the literature review, potential open AHSS practices were recorded together with any examples or additional sources. We identified potential open AHSS practices based on their alignment with the aims of open research in the broadest sense – for example, as articulated in the UNESCO definition – and/or potential additional contexts or senses of openness provisionally identified by the research team. Identified practices were subsequently subjected to targeted research, and where considered relevant, were included in the catalogue. Documentation entailed a short definition of the practice, a full description, openly accessible examples of the practice, and details of relevant resources (e.g. toolkits) and further reading. A second stage then involved conducting a mapping exercise to identify a typology of openness within which practices may be categorised. The resulting catalogue of open AHSS practices is now available ( MORPHSS, 2026 ), with the supporting documentation archived in Knowledge Commons ( Adams et al., 2026a ). Recognising the limitations of this or perhaps any targeted approach to cataloguing open practices across all AHSS disciplines and research types, the catalogue is open to feedback and suggestions from members of relevant research communities, which will inform future iterations. Results and discussion Literature review In this section, we highlight key findings from the literature review, structured according to the research questions addressed, and organised in sections covering the social sciences and the arts and humanities. Where, how, and how successfully are existing discourses of ‘open research’ / ‘Open Science’ applied to research practices in AHSS? (RQ1) Social sciences At both macro (‘the social sciences’) and discipline-specific levels, we found evidence of anxiety about the lack of reproducibility and replicability 7 in empirical research in the light of debates in other (particularly STEM) disciplines. At the macro level, examples include Damian et al. (2022) , Grossmann (2021) , and Balafoutas et al. (2025) , the latter of whom identifies a replication crisis in the social sciences that is linked to the proliferation of incentives towards questionable research practices. Anxieties about the lack of reproducibility and replicability were voiced across a majority of individual social science disciplines, with examples including management ( Aguinis et al., 2018 ; Aguinis and Solarino, 2019 ; Bamberger, 2019 ; Bergh et al., 2017 ; Hensel, 2021 ) and sociology ( Auspurg and Brüderl, 2022 ; Breznau, 2021 ). These broad concerns are complemented by a body of literature within the majority of social science disciplines calling for the adoption of OS practices in that discipline. In communication, for example, Dienlin et al. (2021) advocate for the adoption of pre-registration, data and code sharing, in addition to a greater frequency of replication studies. A comparable repertoire of practices are suggested by Birkenmaier et al. (2024) , Bowman (2024) , Lewis (2020) , Markowitz et al. (2021) , and McEwan et al. (2018) . In education, calls to conduct more replications are advanced by Cai (2022) and Makel and Plucker (2014) , while adoption of a broader range of OS practices including pre-registration, open data and materials, electronic lab notebooks, and preprinting is recommended in works by Cook et al. (2018, 2021) ; Gehlbach and Robinson (2018) ; LeBeau et al. (2021) ; van der Zee and Reich (2018) ; and van Dijk et al. (2021) . These ‘calls to arms’ are usually voiced by scholars engaged in quantitative research and typically focus on ‘canonical’ OS practices such as pre-registration and registered reports, open data, code and materials, and the conducting of direct replications. Advocacy aimed at researchers is coupled with calls for social science journals to encourage or mandate OS practices to a greater extent, including via adoption of the TOP guidelines (e.g. Alvarez and Heuberger, 2022 ; Auspurg and Brüderl, 2022 ; Dadon-Golan and Ziderman, 2024 ; Dafoe, 2014 ; Finger et al., 2025 ; Orozco et al., 2020 ; Pridemore et al., 2018 ; Silverstein et al., 2024 ; Torka et al. 2023 ). These examples illustrate a substantial social sciences discourse voicing concerns about a lack of reproducibility and replicability and advocating for the use of canonical OS practices in response. Yet there are also indicators of this agenda’s lack of traction on practice itself. At the macro level, while Ferguson et al. (2023) report increasing uptake of OS practices across social science disciplines based on researchers’ self-reports, Hardwicke et al. (2020) observe only minimal uptake from a random sample of 250 social science articles published between 2014 and 2017, and Jeng and He’s (2022) study of social sciences researchers in US universities found low levels of data sharing. These mixed indications are echoed at a discipline-specific level by findings identifying either low uptake levels or a gap between researchers’ perceptions and use of OS practices – for example, in communication, Haim and Jungblut (2023) and Markowitz et al. (2021) ; in education, Fleming et al. (2025) and Logan et al. (2025) ; in geography, Kedron et al. (2024) ; and in law, Greenspan et al. (2024) , Matthews and Rantanen (2025) and Schumann et al. (2019) . Arts and humanities In comparison to the broad application of OS discourses across the majority of social science disciplines, their prevalence in the arts and humanities is both more limited and more localised. Setting aside open access, which is not our key focus, we find more easy alignment with existing OS discourses among subdisciplines with methodological approaches comparable to those in STEM, entailing data-driven, empirical and computational methods. In particular, there have been recent calls for the adoption of Open Science practices such as preprinting, registered reports, and preregistration in applied and corpus linguistics ( Liu, 2023 ; Liu et al., 2025 ; Mak, 2024 ), archaeology ( Queffelec et al., 2023 ), and experimental philosophy ( Cova et al., 2021 ). More generally, arts and humanities researchers often express greater comfort with the term ‘open research’ than ‘Open Science’, especially in Anglophone contexts ( Arthur and Hearn, 2021 ; Jensenius, 2021 ). A study by Gualandi et al. (2022) of researchers in disciplines including literary criticism, language and linguistics, the history of art, and archival studies, found mostly positive sentiments towards open research in the humanities, including a ‘willingness to share research data and a desire to “give back” to society the results of research’ (62). We also find some instances of endorsement of the logic of reproducibility and replication as applicable to the humanities in general, most notably in the work of theology and metaresearch scholars Peels and Bouter (2018) , including a special issue of the theology journal Zygon dedicated to the topic of replication ( Peels et al., 2024 ). Issues of reproducibility and replication have also been explored in history ( Huijnen and Huistra, 2022 ), though these perspectives are not widely adopted within the discipline. Localised applications of OS discourses include engagement with the potential of open online databases in both media studies ( Taurino, 2022 ) and art history ( Bylund and Näslund, 2024 ). Across the disciplines, we found a clear recognition of the need for and benefits of open research data, even where challenges exist in making data open ( Ma, 2024 ; Gualandi et al., 2022 ). Linked Open Data (LOD), which allows for targeted aggregation from disparate sources of open data across the web, has furthermore been recognised as ‘one of the most promising directions for the integration of information resources’ in AHSS ( Antopolsky, 2022 , 119). Applications of this practice were found in history ( Beretta and Riechert, 2016 ; Gross et al., 2018 ; Sturgeon, 2022 ), fine art ( Buchanan et al., 2011 ), music ( Rose-Steel and Turnator, 2016 ), cultural heritage ( Bassett et al., 2022 ; Kotis et al., 2021 ), linguistics ( Chiarcos et al., 2011 ; McCrae et al., 2016 ), archaeology ( Oksanen et al., 2022 ), and digital humanities ( Antopolsky, 2022 ; Brazzo and Rodriguez, 2019 ; Hyvönen, 2020 ). This widely-adopted practice is a way of rendering open the dispersed, context-dependent, and specialised data often prevalent in the arts and humanities. There is limited evidence of engagement in the humanities with the potential of open peer review, as advocated by scholars including Pack Sheffield (2013) in rhetoric and composition and Peters (2014) in philosophy, with particular focus on the opportunities for open participation provided by online platform commenting functions. While Wolfram et al. (2019) found the use of open peer review in humanities journals to be minimal, variants have nevertheless been adopted in some innovative applications in recent years, particularly in the area of experimental publishing ( Adema, 2023 ; Gallon and Bowman, 2025 ; Kiesewetter, 2024 ), with a focus on open peer review as an exercise of care and relationship-building ( Moore, 2025 ) rather than primarily a transparency practice as is commonly the case in STEM disciplines. How and from what perspectives is such an application resisted? (RQ2) Social sciences We noted above the existence of a significant body of literature advocating the adoption of canonical OS practices in the social sciences to improve transparency, reproducibility and replicability. Yet we also found resistance to this logic and its applicability to all areas of social science research, with particular concerns raised by qualitative researchers, especially those within interpretivist and constructionist traditions. These concerns were found across most disciplines aside from economics, within which qualitative approaches are perhaps less prevalent. The relevance of replicability and reproducibility to qualitative research is queried at both a macro and discipline-specific level. From an integrative review of discourse on these concepts in qualitative research across disciplines, Cole et al. find that ‘reproducibility [and] replicability, […] are often perceived as in ontological and/or epistemological conflict with qualitative research’ ( 2024 , 17). We find this querying in discipline-level debates as well – in geography, for example, Sui and Kedron (2021) question the relevance of reproducibility and replication to ‘ideographic’ work focused on specific cases and contexts. However, there have been some efforts to reframe reproducibility for qualitative research, e.g. in Hanchard and San Roman Pineda’s (2025) concept of ‘re-renderability’, which modifies reproducibility as conditionally defined while still enabling qualitative data to be reused to validate findings. 8 The broader underlying principles of OS have also been challenged in such disciplines as communications. Humphreys et al. (2021) highlight the limited relevance of OS principles to interpretive and qualitative research, while Fox et al. note that ‘OS represents certain ontological and epistemological assumptions that marginalize entire areas of research’ (773). In addition to resisting the logics of reproducibility and replication, we find a related resistance from qualitative perspectives to expectations around specific OS practices, particularly data sharing. 9 Resistance to qualitative data sharing is voiced on a variety of grounds: that it will expose participants to risk and may limit participation ( Fox et al., 2021 , Monroe, 2018 ), is epistemically inappropriate in the sense that data in interpretive and big-Q methodologies are not considered separable from the circumstances of their co/creation ( Prosser et al., 2024 ), entails greater practical challenges than sharing other data types ( Tsai et al., 2016 ) and requires time and resources that may disqualify disadvantaged researchers from participating ( Dutta et al., 2021 ; Nordtveit, 2018 ). These concerns are especially thoroughly addressed in political science, in which qualitative researchers’ resistance to the DA-RT (Data Access and Research Transparency) initiative introduced in the mid-2010s led to extensive reflection in the form of the Qualitative Transparency Deliberations. While working groups on content analysis, text-based sources, comparative methods and process-tracing considered data sharing possible and appropriate to some extent, ethnographers and those working with human subjects and in higher-risk contexts challenged such expectations on the grounds of participant safety and epistemic congruence ( Jacobs et al., 2021 ). 10 We thus identified a considerable body of literature suggesting that the diversity of methodological approaches within the social sciences – with a particular emphasis on qualitative and interpretive approaches – makes it necessary to look beyond the existing OS frameworks when investigating the possibilities of openness in these disciplines. Arts and humanities As in the social sciences, we find a significant body of literature in the arts and humanities that explicitly or implicitly resists the logic and practices of OS, with scholars highlighting the disparity between STEM-derived OS terminologies and the methods and epistemologies of the arts and humanities. Knöchelmann (2019) and Arthur and Hearn (2021) , for example, emphasise the unique characteristics that humanities disciplines share, including their emphasis on perspectivity, subjectivity, historicity and contextual meaning over objectivity and replicability. Ma (2024) highlights the resulting lesser relevance of generalisability in this context, while Kember (2020) foregrounds the contrasting temporalities of STEM research, which benefits from fast dissemination, and those of the humanities, which depend on longer timescales by nature, with implications for the relevance of practices such as preprinting. These differences have a significant impact on the relevance and applicability of OS practices to arts and humanities research. As in the social sciences, one area highlighted as potentially problematic is open data. Some humanities researchers feel reluctant to use the term ‘data’ at all, perceiving the term as an objectivising one that is embedded in STEM-derived logics ( CO-OPERAS, Bertino and Tóth-Czifra, 2020 ), while a lack of consensus on what constitutes ‘data’ in these disciplines is elsewhere observed ( CO-OPERAS and Giglia, 2020 ; Gualandi et al., 2022 ). The FAIR principles that underpin expectations around data sharing are challenged from arts and humanities perspectives as relying on specific assumptions about the nature of knowledge creation, including the assumptions that data are always digital and always ‘owned’ by researchers ( Tóth-Czifra, 2019 ). Not only are the materials that inform arts and humanities research not typically understood as or categorised as data ( Hansson and Dahlgren, 2022 ), common data sources like ‘documents, artifacts, […] newspapers, correspondence, manuscripts, images, and archaeological objects’ often require bespoke and specific curation approaches ( Ma, 2024 , 3-4) on brief timescales ( Hansson and Dahlgren, 2022 ), making sharing challenging. Further challenges around open data that are highlighted at a macro level include barriers resulting from copyright or restrictive licensing ( Ma, 2024 ; see also Liem and Mostert (2020) on music research specifically) and ownership of materials by GLAM sector institutions ( Hansson and Dahlgren, 2022 ). The context-dependency of arts and humanities data ( Ma, 2024 ; Arthur and Hearn, 2021 ), like that of qualitative social sciences data, is further highlighted as increasing susceptibility to misunderstanding by future users where data are inadequately documented ( Hansson and Dahlgren, 2022 ). At a discipline-specific level, highlighted barriers to sharing creative practice research data include ‘issues surrounding informed consent [and] intellectual property’ ( Broadhead and Gonnet, 2025 , 32), which can lead to legal and ethical dilemmas, as well as concerns around potential misuse of open data despite the controls enabled by licensing. Jacobs et al. (2024) elsewhere highlight that for practice-based arts researchers, documentation of process is often presumed to be the ‘data’, yet artists themselves may not consider this the research’s most interesting component. In fields such as archaeology, scholars highlight further concerns around political sensitivity ( Fisher et al., 2021 ) and the potential impact on local communities ( Beale, 2012 ; Cook, 2018 ). Other OS practices such as preprinting, registered reports, and preregistration have received a mixed reception; as regards the former, Laporte (2017) observes low uptake of preprinting in particular. Debates consider what benefits exist here for humanities scholarship and whether humanities scholars would benefit more from rapid formal publication than rapid informal publication via preprints ( Knöchelmann, 2019 , 8). What existing, emergent and experimental open research practices are taking place in AHSS? (RQ3) Social sciences From the literature review, we identified two main categories of open research practices in the social sciences that lie outside the conventional scope of OS: those that were explicitly recognised as open practices, and those that were not, but were surfaced by the search terms and exploratory strategies used. The first category includes transparency around positionality (e.g. Schwedler et al., 2019 ), reflexivity (e.g. Fox et al., 2021 ; Shaw et al., 2021 ), member checking or member sharing (e.g. Humphreys et al., 2021 ), transparency towards participants ( Jacobs et al., 2021 ), and sharing qualitative research materials ( Renbarger et al., 2023 ). Authors highlighted these practices to demonstrate the extent to which qualitative and interpretive methods possess existing strategies of openness that are under-articulated in OS frameworks. Practices in the second category included the documentation and dissemination of failure (e.g. Clark and Sousa, 2020 ) and participatory methods, with a particularly rich seam of material concerning the latter found in geography (e.g. Kinpaisby, 2008 ; Koopman, 2024 ; Ritterbusch, 2019 ) and education (e.g. Ayaya et al., 2020 ; McGeown et al., 2023 , Penuel and Hill, 2019 ). Arts and humanities Within the arts and humanities, we noted a distinct focus on forms of openness entailing interaction and collaboration between multiple actors as part of the research process, including in such practices as collective authorship ( Adema, 2021 ; Hanfling, 2025 ; Peters et al., 2019 ) and translation ( Ak and Tekin, 2025 ; Dickie, 2017 ; Rosas et al., 2025 ), as well as experimental modes of longform publishing ( Adema, 2021 ; Cota, 2023 ). In addition, innovative means of sharing research processes and research evidence emerge from open documentation of creative methods ( Meece et al., 2017 ; Messer, 2025 ), which are often ‘highly complex and multidimensional’ ( Jensenius, 2021 ), and the open sharing of creative practice outputs ( Bulley and Sahin, 2021 ; Messer, 2025 ). Public scholarship is increasingly an important approach towards the accessible communication of arts and humanities research: for example, through academic podcasting ( Beckstead, 2024 ; Beckstead and Llinares, 2025 ; Sewell, 2025 ). Communicating scholarly thought and findings beyond academia ( Arbuckle, 2021 ) to ‘lay citizen’ audiences is identified as a necessary way for researchers to ‘contribute to the democratization of research’ ( Leavy, 2019 ). Humanities scholars and interdisciplinary teams are also working creatively with technologies such as Linked Open Data (LOD) to facilitate access to and sharing of cultural and heritage data ( Antopolsky, 2022 ; Kudera et al., 2024 ), but also to respond to humanities-specific priorities and enquiries, such as filling the gaps in literary and cultural histories by way of digital enumerative bibliographies ( Coker and Ozment, 2019 ). Scholars highlight the communal, processual, experimental ( Adema, 2021 ; Hope, 2016 ; Skains, 2018 ) and heavily context-dependent ( Arthur and Hearn, 2021 ; Ma, 2024 ; Knöchelmann, 2019 ) nature of open research practices in the arts and humanities. On a more practical level, authors also emphasised the need for more robust and sustainable infrastructure for the sharing of nontraditional research outputs (NTROs), often including creative practice works ( Evans et al., 2023 ; Jackson et al., 2023 ). What coalesces is the importance of viewing openness in terms of cognition and conception, surfacing new paradigms for developing knowledge ( Stern et al., 2015 ), and facilitating a more equitable transmission and exchange of ideas within society, beyond the focus on open access and open data ( Arthur and Hearn, 2021 ). Identifying and categorising practices The foregoing discussion demonstrated that while the agenda of openness in AHSS has largely been set by and around the OS movement, points of departure exist for an alternative conceptualisation that accommodates the diversity of practice in these disciplines. We here give key examples of these practices in the context of the typology of forms of openness proposed as an outcome of this work. During the mapping exercise, we identified six forms of openness, which we place in three broad categories: Openness as equitable and inclusive knowledge creation; Openness as the rich realisation of research, and Openness as access/ible dissemination. In creating this typology, we drew on vocabularies such as that of the UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science ( 2021 ) while ensuring their articulation in ways that are inclusive of the variety of knowledge practices occurring in AHSS. An overview of the typology and practices of openness can be found in Figure 2 and Table 2 , while a detailed discussion of each practice is provided in the MORPHSS catalogue . We do not reproduce these detailed descriptions here, but provide links to the catalogue for interested readers. Figure 2. MORPHSS typology of openness in AHSS. Legend: The figure illustrates the six forms of openness that comprise the MORPHSS typology, together with the three broader categories within which these are placed. The presence of overlaps between forms of openness highlights the fact that these may co-occur within a given open research practice, though in reality a wider range of intersections of different forms of openness exists than it is possible to depict here. Table 2. MORPHSS typology of openness in AHSS: overview of practices by type of openness. Openness as equitable & inclusive knowledge creation Openness as the rich realisation of research Openness as access/ible dissemination Open research practice AH, SS or AHSS Participatory openness Epistemic openness Process openness Evidentiary openness Availability of outputs Accessible communication of research Academic/Scholarly podcasts AHSS ● ● Annotation for Transparent Inquiry (ATI) AHSS ● ● Applying the CARE principles to data from marginalised communities AHSS ● ● ● Authorship (Collective, Collaborative or Communal) AH ● ● Co-production AHSS ● ● Collaborative translation AHSS ● ● ● Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) AHSS ● ● Data papers AHSS ● ● ● Digital enumerative bibliographies AH ● ● Documenting and disseminating failure SS ● Experimental longform publishing AHSS ● ● ● Linked open data AHSS ● ● Member checking/member sharing SS ● ● Open documentation of creative methods AH ● ● ● Open documentation of methods SS ● ● Open longform scholarship AHSS ● Open materials AHSS ● ● Open peer review AHSS ● ● ● Participatory Action Research AHSS ● ● Positionality (foregrounding of ) SS ● Pre-registering qualitative research SS ● ● Preprints and working papers AHSS ● Public scholarship AHSS ● ● Reflexivity SS ● Research-Practice Partnerships (RPPs) SS ● ● Sharing creative practice outputs AH ● ● Sharing creatively refigured data SS ● ● ● Sharing ethically fabricated data AHSS ● ● Sharing qualitative data AHSS ● ● Virtual exhibitions AH ● ● It is important to note some key points on the relationship between the practices detailed here and those characteristically identified in STEM disciplines. While some AHSS practices, such as preprinting, open peer review and preregistering qualitative research, have counterparts or equivalents in STEM, in many cases their function and application differ in AHSS contexts. For example, in iterative forms of qualitative research, pre-registration functions primarily to openly disseminate research plans and aid an initial formulation of an approach that will evolve, rather than to curtail later misrepresentations of the research process. These differences and (in some cases superficial) similarities are documented in full in entries in the MORPHSS catalogue, which also place these instances of actual and apparent parity in the context of a broader range of established and experimental open practices in AHSS that do not possess straightforward equivalents in STEM. We also note that the range of open AHSS practices identified is not exhaustive, rather providing a starting point in ongoing efforts to map this terrain. Below, we further unpack the components of the MORPHSS typology of forms of openness in AHSS. Openness as equitable and inclusive knowledge creation In this category, which correlates to the ‘Open engagement of societal actors’ and ‘Open dialogue with other knowledge systems’ quadrants of the UNESCO Open Science model, we place the following two forms of openness: participatory openness and epistemic openness. We borrow this vocabulary from Pinfield (2024) , where it is primarily used to characterise the conditions for equitable open access. Participatory openness By participatory openness, we refer to practices that open participation in research to a wider group of individuals and communities outside the academy. In practices and approaches such as Co-production , Community-Based Participatory Research , Participatory Action Research and Research-Practice Partnerships 11 in disciplines such as education, sociology, political science and human geography, the involvement of communities and individuals extends beyond merely acting as subjects or passive participants in research ( Aldridge, 2015 , 4-5). Rather, participation may and ideally does extend to all aspects of the research process, including the identification of research questions, research design, data creation and analysis, and communication of findings, which can include co-authorship of publications as well as other forms of dissemination such as workshops, blogs and exhibitions ( Bell and Pahl, 2018 , 110). Participation in the formulation stages opens research to the concerns of the communities it addresses, increasing its relevance and impact ( Resnik and Kennedy, 2010 , 199); involvement in data creation and analysis enables participants’ expert and lived experience knowledges to inform these processes while also providing opportunities for capacity building ( Facer and Enright, 2016 , 122-4); and involvement in disseminating research ensures that participants are appropriately credited for their contributions and able to shape forms of dissemination that engage their communities. Open peer review in the form of open participation – allowing comments and feedback from broader publics as part of an open evaluation process – offers another instance of participatory openness. Epistemic openness Epistemic openness designates practices that value and engage with a range of knowledge types and ways of knowing other than those existing solely within the academy. There is a significant overlap here with the practices that embody participatory openness, in that practices that welcome individuals and communities as co-researchers are also often ones that value the forms of knowledge they contribute to research. These forms of knowledge might include lived experience (as in, for example, Participatory Action Research , which may engage individuals with experiences of specific forms of marginalisation); communal forms of knowledge including Indigenous knowledges (which may be explored in applications of Community-Based Participatory Research ) or professional and practice-based knowledge (e.g. in Research-Practice Partnerships ). Methodologies that value and engage these and other forms of knowledge unsettle pre-existing hierarchies of knowing, countering previous extractivist approaches. Practices of epistemic openness require cultural and epistemic humility ( Ghiso et al., 2019 , 11; Ross, 2010 ) through which researchers acknowledge the contingencies of their own knowledge as well as its embeddedness in exclusionary hierarchies and logics of marginalisation. This can involve processes of ‘unlearning’, ‘co-learning’ and ‘relearning’ ( Dutta, 2019 , 2-3), in addition to rigorous reflexive practice ( Groot et al., 2022 ). Relevant too may be the application of the CARE principles for equity in the management and sharing of Indigenous data ( Carroll et al., 2020 ). The principles – which can also be applied to research with other marginalised communities ( Suchikova and Nazarovets, 2025 ) – align treatments of Indigenous data with Indigenous peoples’ collective interests and agency, which may entail such practices as co-designing data management processes, using culturally appropriate metadata and ceding control to communities over whether and how their data is shared. Openness as the rich realisation of research This category contains two forms of openness – process openness and evidentiary openness – that denote ways of making available aspects of the research process that have historically been hidden or obscured. We use the language ‘rich realisation of research’ rather than, for example, ‘transparency’, to acknowledge that for some AHSS researchers working in interpretivist and constructionist traditions, ‘transparency’ has instrumental connotations that suggest scrutiny or verification as the primary purpose of sharing; such connotations may be inappropriate where the purpose of research is not framed as the discovery and dissemination of a pre-existing external reality. Our terminology, in contrast, suggests an abundance that manifests the multidimensionality and complexity of research processes, enhancing audiences’ ability to engage with research processes, contexts and materials. Process openness Process openness refers to sharing elements of the research process, with examples including open materials (publishing research materials such as interview guides, participant information sheets, and coding schemes), open documentation of methods , open peer review , or using a technology like Annotation for Transparent Inquiry (ATI ) , which enables annotation of published articles with detailed notes, to provide further methodological information. Pre-registering qualitative research , where it is possible and meaningful to specify approaches in advance, supports discoverability of research plans, while documenting and disseminating failure ensures a richer picture of research as it has actually taken place. We also consider practices like reflexivity – continuous self-examination of the impact of (inter) personal context on a study’s design, implementation and analysis – and explorations of positionality – clarification regarding the standpoint from which the research is produced – as examples of process openness, insofar as they clarify the conditions under which knowledge was produced. These forms of process openness are well-established in qualitative and AHSS research but less so in quantitative and STEM research, an imbalance scholars including Jamieson et al. (2023) encourage quantitative researchers to address. Evidentiary openness Evidentiary openness might otherwise have been termed ‘data sharing’, but to do so would be reductive of a diverse set of practices by which research evidence is made available to the communities (peers and participants) of research. Examples include sharing qualitative data via a data repository in ways that align with the FAIR principles , which may often require deidentification processes and/or levels of access restriction to be applied, and publishing a data paper – a short article documenting a dataset and describing its context, creation, and reuse potential – a practice common to both AHSS and STEM contexts. Evidentiary underpinnings to a published paper can also be highlighted through Annotation for Transparent Inquiry . Where identification risks remain or consent is not obtainable, researchers might use more oblique strategies of evidentiary openness including sharing ethically fabricated data . Evidentiary openness can also entail applying the CARE principles to ensure data and materials are shared appropriately in line with the preferences of marginalised communities, or to ensure such materials are not shared openly but instead returned to communities in a different manifestation of such openness. Documentation and outputs from creative practice research may not be straightforwardly categorisable as ‘data’, but their sharing via mechanisms like archived portfolios likewise achieves evidentiary openness. Finally, sharing creatively refiguring data – qualitative data refigured using arts-based forms such as drama or poetry – can offer a means of evidentiary openness with participants, as can member sharing , in which participants are invited to provide input on the data or analyses produced from their involvement in research. Openness as access/ible dissemination This category brings together two overlapping yet distinct forms of openness that apply to the availability and accessibility of research outputs. Our identification of two forms of openness here highlights the fact that the open sharing of outputs does not necessarily make these outputs accessible to wider publics. Both may be required to realise the benefits of ‘open access’ in the broadest sense. Availability of outputs In this category, we include open access outputs such as open longform scholarship , data papers , open materials , pre-registrations , open peer review reports, preprints and working papers and open qualitative data . In their free and open availability, these enable scholars to access research outputs regardless of their institutional context and its associated level of resource. Accessible communication of research Accessible communication of research is the dissemination of research in ways that are comprehensible, meaningful and engaging to broader publics, corresponding to the UNESCO pillars of Open Science of ‘open engagement of societal actors’ and ‘open scientific knowledge’. This may include outputs such as academic podcasts , freely-available audio recordings that enable research findings to be accessibly presented for diverse audiences. We also include in this category virtual exhibitions , freely-accessible digital or online exhibitions, together with other forms of public scholarship such as blogs, social media posts, television and radio broadcasts and public lectures. Another means of accessibly communicating research is sharing creatively refigured data , for example, in the form of ethnodrama or research poetry. Forms of openness and their audiences These forms of openness, and the audiences, participants and publics to and with whom they are directed, are summarised in Figure 3 : Figure 3. Forms of openness and their audiences, participants and publics. Legend: The figure illustrates the ways in which different forms of openness enable different communities and groups to benefit from and/or contribute to research. Epistemic and participatory openness allow participants and communities to shape and enrich research processes; process openness, evidentiary openness and the availability of outputs primarily benefit academic audiences; and the accessible communication of research primarily benefits non-academic audiences. Dotted lines indicate where additional benefits may occur. Practices of epistemic and participatory openness enable participants and communities to input into, and even shape, research processes; these stakeholders may also be the beneficiaries of process openness, evidentiary openness and the accessible communication of research, via practices such as member sharing and public scholarship. Academic audiences benefit largely from practices of process openness, evidentiary openness and availability of outputs, which increase the possibilities for engagement with a study and facilitate future research. Accessible communication of research is the central form of openness to benefit non-academic audiences, via practices such as academic podcasts, virtual exhibitions and other forms of public scholarship. Reflections and recommendations We thus identify six types of openness in AHSS – participatory and epistemic openness, process and evidentiary openness, availability of outputs and the accessible communication of research, a model we refer to as the MORPHSS typology. As noted, this typology in many ways evokes the inclusive model of openness articulated in the UNESCO Recommendation, while theorising its contents and categories in terms that are sensitive to the goals and epistemologies of AHSS research. In this sense, the forms of openness identified here are areas which should also be more fully explored in the context of STEM research – for example, through a greater emphasis on practices of citizen science and science communication and more extensive consideration of the CARE principles. The formulation and application of such a framework to AHSS is especially crucial, however, as the AHSS practices identified here are more broadly and evenly distributed across these different forms of openness than those characteristically highlighted within STEM subjects. The typology identified here also foregrounds the extent to which, rather than conceiving OR solely as the openness of research materials such as data, code and publications, it can also be productively positioned as an openness to certain practices in AHSS. For example, many of the forms of openness identified above concern the openness to different participants, knowledges and communities, while other practices such as open peer review and experimental longform publishing emphasise OR’s ability to catalyse new forms of knowledge production. Many AHSS fields have long-established norms around authorship, research practice, and dissemination, shaped by dominant research cultures and assessment mechanisms. Openness, however, as noted elsewhere by Adema (2021) , encourages experimentation with these entrenched practices, suggesting the need for research stakeholders to engage with open research in part for its potential to stimulate a plurality of innovative practices in AHSS fields. In this section of the article, we further reflect in brief on some of the implications of this work for an epistemically inclusive approach to open research. Open practices in AHSS are diverse and manifold From a necessarily partial and incomplete survey, we have identified a diverse set of practices, the majority of which lie outside the boundaries of the canonical repertoire of OS. These likewise manifest a much wider set of aims than facilitating reproducibility and replicability, and a wide range of relevant actors, interlocutors and audiences to and with whom openness may be directed. Openness directed towards research participants, and openness directed towards general audiences, are especially emphasised. Regulatory regimes that mandate, measure or encourage open research must take account of the range and variability of open practices across the disciplines, including the fact that: Openness in AHSS is not binary and resists quantification Attempts to automate the monitoring of OS practices via initiatives like the French Open Science Monitor ( Bassinet et al., 2023 ; Bracco, 2022 ) and UKRN Open Research Indicators Project ( Jacobs et al., 2026 ) rely substantially on binary measures (data is shared or not shared, a study has been pre-registered or not pre-registered), and in many instances, on the ability of Text and Data Mining (TDM) to determine whether a given condition has been met. The nature of many open practices in AHSS, however, makes them less conducive to binary and quantitative forms of evaluation. Research is either pre-registered or not, but can be more or less participatory, including in superficial ways; there is no quantitative measure of whether the management of data in a project is in line with the CARE principles, and they do not lend themselves to such an approach. There are also several ways in which many of these practices may be achieved, complicating the potential for automated assessment. For example, open methods could take the form of a repository deposit, a methodological appendix, 12 or use of a subject-specific interactive digital platform. Potential efforts to regulate AHSS open research are further complicated by a related point: The selection and implementation of open practices in AHSS are situated rather than standardisable A consideration of open AHSS practices such as qualitative data sharing and applications of the CARE principles underscores the degree to which the appropriateness of many of these practices is dependent upon a range of ethical and situational factors, including community preferences and interests. This context-dependency evokes the Open and Collaborative Science in Development Network (OCSDNet) Manifesto’s call for research that ‘practices situated openness by addressing the ways in which context , power and inequality condition scientific research’ ( Albornoz et al., 2017 , 294), as well as Sabina Leonelli’s (2023) framing of openness as underpinned by efforts to ‘cultivate epistemic justice as appropriate to the situations of inquiry at hand’ (53, 63). In these framings, open practices are not inherently valuable but only insofar as they facilitate equitable participation in research among the actors and contexts concerned. This situatedness is evident in the MORPHSS typology in the presence of forms of openness (e.g. participatory and epistemic) that are grounded in ethical relationships and responsibilities. The CARE principles are a writing-large of the fact that recognising and supporting the multiple actors and knowledges at play in research means attuning oneself to contextual specificities and to the agency and interests of others. Practices like participatory methodologies, applications of the CARE principles, member sharing and reflexivity likewise foreground the necessity of a research ethics of care ( Miele et al., 2024 ) that is at once individually and communally focused. This may at times make practices like data sharing inappropriate, or may instead compel the sharing (returning) of data to participant communities rather than research communities or broader publics. In its turn, this point highlights the fact that in AHSS there are echelons or realms of potential openness rather than a single appropriate level and direction of openness (i.e. unrestricted openness to ‘all’, for a value of ‘all’ which presupposes a level of empowerment – social, linguistic, educational, technological – necessary to experience its benefits). Implications of this context-specificity include the fact that, as Sarahanne Field argues with respect to qualitative research, open research ‘must reject blanket mandates of sharing in favour of situated, reflexive evaluation’ ( 2025 , 22-23). The appropriateness of particular open AHSS practices is also often specific to the methodological approach and (sub)discipline concerned: for example, not all AHSS projects involve collecting or creating primary data or working with participants, making data sharing and participatory methods less relevant in some contexts. Selection is dependent, too, on questions of methodological congruence; as Steltenpohl et al. (2025, 1) note, ‘[e]ngagement or disengagement of any given practice should be guided by demands of research epistemology, context, community, topic and methodology’. As discussed above, a practice like pre-registration may be less meaningful or productive in the context of iterative and co-creative research methodologies which resist pre-specification, while notions of data sharing are considered by many qualitative researchers to presuppose too much in terms of data’s portability and the meaningfulness of attempts to de- and re-contextualise them. A consideration of openness that is genuinely attuned to the diversities of practice is compelled to acknowledge that as Tamminen et al. state, the appropriateness of a given open practice ‘must be considered in the context of each study and the evolving relationships among researchers, participants, and communities’ ( 2021 , 871), with researchers retaining agency in this process. Recommendations Considering the open AHSS practices identified in this project, we note that openness in AHSS is manifold, often irreducible to binaries or quantitative measurement, and frequently situated rather than standardisable, making flexibility a necessary part of efforts to encourage and evaluate it. These reflections prompt a set of initial recommendations for key stakeholders in the following categories: funders, open research monitoring initiatives, institutions, publishers, learned societies, and researchers; we list these in full in the Appendix with some key points highlighted below. For stakeholders in the regulatory regimes of open research – those mechanisms by which openness is encouraged, mandated or measured, which include funder and journal policy, institutional hiring, reward and recognition processes, and open research monitoring initiatives, we recommend reviewing the scope of open practices currently stipulated, assessing their level of inclusiveness across disciplinary, epistemological, and methodological differences. Where current policies and processes lack inclusivity, processes of revision should involve AHSS communities and include the development of exemplars to guide appropriate practice. Crucially, we recommend the need for flexibility in revised regulatory mechanisms: for example, funding schemes might refer applicants to comprehensive information on a wide range of OR practices and require a statement detailing which will be used in the proposed study and why, evaluating this component on the basis of congruence between the practices selected and the project’s methodological approach and epistemological stance. 13 Journal policies, especially in AHSS and interdisciplinary areas (e.g. sustainability, development), might likewise provide an overview of a broad and inclusive range of OR practices and require authors to provide an OR statement on article submission that details which of these practices they have employed and why, with links to evidence. In this, we follow Steltenpohl et al.’s (2023 , n.p.) suggestion that ‘[b]y expanding open science guidelines to leverage a broader array of rigor and transparency-promoting practices (e.g., reflexivity), we can truly begin to advance practices.’ For AHSS researchers, we emphasise the importance of actively exploring a broad range of open practices beyond those expressly mandated, selecting those that are consistent with epistemological and methodological approaches and appropriate to research contexts, and actively contributing to debate regarding appropriate forms of openness in AHSS. We also encourage researchers to evaluate their current practice through the lens of openness, and to advocate for the recognition of the openness of aspects of their work that may be unrecognised within current frameworks. Conclusions and limitations The scope and comprehensiveness of the MORPHSS catalogue is limited by the capacities of the small research team within the project’s time constraints, resulting in a necessarily partial mapping of these practices. Using a literature review approach as the basis for such efforts risks uncovering only those aspects of practice that are already framed in a vocabulary of openness; our use of exploratory strategies sought to mitigate this but may not have wholly redressed the balance between the recognised and the as-yet-unrecognised. The framing of the project in terms of discipline rather than research type also carries potential limitations in grouping together what is actually a diverse range of methodologies and approaches; we have clarified the reasons for this choice. Despite these limitations, we feel this work offers a valuable starting point in efforts to reimagine open research for the arts, humanities and qualitative social sciences, in particular by highlighting the multiplicity of practices that lie outside current dominant models of Open Science. Emphasising this diversity carries the potential to enrich debates around open research at a multidisciplinary level, problematising and diversifying existing models, promoting epistemic and disciplinary pluralism, and inviting reconsideration of approaches to openness across all areas, including STEM fields, which might further consider the relevance of some of the broader forms – and goals – of openness highlighted here. Pre-registration statement This research was not pre-registered. Rights retention statement For the purpose of open access, the authors have applied a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission. AI statement No AI tools have been used at any stage in the writing of this article or in the underlying research. Data availability statement The following data and methodological materials are openly available: Knowledge Commons: ‘Data for the MORPHSS Catalogue of Open Research Practices in the Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences’. https://doi.org/10.17613/f14z6-mgt86 ( Adams et al., 2026a ). This contains the following underlying data: ● Full descriptions - AHSS open practices (MORPHSS catalogue) - text for the full descriptions of AHSS practices included in the MORPHSS catalogue ( MORPHSS, 2026 ) ● MORPHSS catalogue content AHSS open practices 2026_02 - tabulated data containing details of each practice included in the MORPHSS catalogue ( MORPHSS, 2026 ), comprising short definitions, disciplines, types of openness, examples and resources/further reading Data are available under the terms of the CC-BY licence Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC-BY-4.0) license . Knowledge Commons: MORPHSS WP 1 Literature review protocol. https://doi.org/10.17613/475rc-c0j16 ( Adams et al., 2026b ). This contains the following methodological materials: ● Literature review protocol (protocol for the literature searches underlying the research presented in this article) Methodological materials are available under the terms of the CC-BY licence Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC-BY-4.0) license . The Appendix can be found here: Adams, Jenni, Miranda Barnes, Samuel Moore, and Stephen Pinfield. 2026. ‘Appendix to Cataloguing and Theorising Open Research Practices in the Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences: Problematising and Diversifying 'Open Science' – Recommendations’. Knowledge Commons. https://doi.org/10.17613/w5wy8-d1s56 ( Adams et al., 2026c ) Data are available under the terms of the CC-BY licence Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC-BY-4.0) license . References Adams J, Barnes M, Soni S, et al. : Data for the MORPHSS Catalogue of Open Research Practices in the Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences. Knowledge Commons. 2026a. Publisher Full Text Adams J, Barnes M, Moore S, et al. : MORPHSS WP 1 Literature Review Protocol. Knowledge Commons. 2026b. Publisher Full Text Adams J, Barnes M, Moore S, et al. : Appendix to Cataloguing and theorising open research practices in the arts, humanities and social sciences: Problematising and diversifying 'Open Science' – Recommendations. Knowledge Commons. 2026c. Publisher Full Text Adema J: Living Books: Experiments in the Posthumanities. MIT Press; 2021. Publisher Full Text Adema J: Experimenting with Workflows for Open Peer Review. Copim. 2023. ahead of print, April 28. Publisher Full Text Aguinis H, Ramani RS, Alabduljader N: What You See Is What You Get? Enhancing Methodological Transparency in Management Research. Acad. Manag. Ann. 2018; 12 (1): 83–110. Publisher Full Text Aguinis H, Solarino AM: Transparency and Replicability in Qualitative Research: The Case of Interviews with Elite Informants. Strateg. Manag. J. 2019; 40 (8): 1291–1315. Publisher Full Text Ak E, Tekin BM: Unveiling Collective Translation: Exploring Charles Dickens’ “The Haunted House” through Paratextual Analysis. Dil ve Edebiyat Araştırmaları. 2025; 32 (October): 237–255. Publisher Full Text Albornoz D, Huang M, Martin IM, et al. : Framing Power: Tracing Key Discourses in Open Science Policies. Paper presented at 22nd International Conference on Electronic Publishing. 22nd International Conference on Electronic Publishing. 2018. June 15. Publisher Full Text Albornoz D, Posada A, Okune A, et al. : Co-Constructing an Open and Collaborative Manifesto to Reclaim the Open Science Narrative. Expanding Perspectives on Open Science: Communities, Cultures, and Diversity in Concepts and Practices. Chan L, Loizides F, editors. IOS Press; 2017. Aldridge J: Participatory Research: Working with Vulnerable Groups in Research and Practice. Policy Press; 2015. Alvarez RM, Heuberger S: How (Not) to Reproduce: Practical Considerations to Improve Research Transparency in Political Science. PS: Political Science & Politics. 2022; 55 (1): 149–154. Publisher Full Text Antopolsky AB: Linked Open Data in the Digital Humanities (Review of Publications). Sci. Tech. Inf. Process. 2022; 49 (2): 119–126. Publisher Full Text Arbuckle A: Opening up Scholarship in the Humanities: Digital Publishing, Knowledge Translation, and Public Engagement.2021. PhD Thesis. Reference Source Arthur PL, Hearn L: Open Scholarship in the Humanities. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc; 1st ed2024. Publisher Full Text Arthur PL, Hearn L: Toward Open Research: A Narrative Review of the Challenges and Opportunities for Open Humanities. J. Commun. 2021; 71 (5): 827–853. Publisher Full Text Auspurg K, Brüderl J: How to Increase Reproducibility and Credibility of Sociological Research. Handbook of Sociological Science: Contributions to Rigorous Sociology. Gerxhani K, de Graaf ND , Raub W, editors. Edward Elgar; 2022. Ayaya G, Makoelle TM, Van Der Merwe M: Participatory Action Research: A Tool for Enhancing Inclusive Teaching Practices Among Teachers in South African Full-Service Schools. SAGE Open. 2020; 10 (4): 2158244020963576. Publisher Full Text Balafoutas L, Celse J, Karakostas A, et al. : Incentives and the Replication Crisis in Social Sciences: A Critical Review of Open Science Practices. J. Behav. Exp. Econ. 2025; 114 (February): 102327. Publisher Full Text Bamberger PA: On the Replicability of Abductive Research in Management and Organizations: Internal Replication and Its Alternatives. Academy of Management Discoveries. 2019; 5 (2): 103–108. Publisher Full Text Bassett E, Dean H, Sutton DC: Linking Archives, Linked Open Data, and the Development of the World-Wide Directory of Repositories Holding Archives of Literature and Art. Comma. 2022; 2022 (1): 15–30. Publisher Full Text Bassinet A, Bracco L, L’Hote A, et al. : Large-Scale Machine-Learning Analysis of Scientific PDF for Monitoring the Production and the Openness of Research Data and Software in France. Preprint, HAL open science. 2023. Reference Source Bazzoli A: Open Science and Epistemic Pluralism: A Tale of Many Perils and Some Opportunities. Ind. Organ. Psychol. 2022; 15 (4): 525–528. Publisher Full Text Beale N: How Community Archaeology Can Make Use of Open Data to Achieve Further Its Objectives. World Archaeol. 2012; 44 (4): 612–633. Publisher Full Text Beckstead L: Podcast or Perish: Peer Review and Knowledge Creation for the 21st Century.Cook IM, McGregor H, editors. Bloomsbury Podcast Studies. Bloomsbury Academic; 1st ed.2024. Publisher Full Text Beckstead L, Llinares D: Podcast Studies: Practice into Theory. Wilfrid Laurier University Press; 2025. Reference Source Beigel F: Opening the Social Sciences: Questioning Eurocentrism and Implementing Contextualized Open Science. Global Perspectives. 2024; 5 (1): 91203. Translated by Daniel Persia. Publisher Full Text Bell DM, Pahl K: Co-Production: Towards a Utopian Approach. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 2018; 21 (1): 105–117. Publisher Full Text Bennett EA: Open Science From a Qualitative, Feminist Perspective: Epistemological Dogmas and a Call for Critical Examination. Psychol. Women Q. 2021; 45 (4): 448–456. Publisher Full Text Bergh DD, Sharp BM, Aguinis H, et al. : Is There a Credibility Crisis in Strategic Management Research? Evidence on the Reproducibility of Study Findings. Strateg. Organ. 2017; 15 (3): 423–436. Publisher Full Text Beretta F, Riechert T: Collaborative Research on Academic History Using Linked Open Data: A Proposal for the Heloise Common Research Model. CIAN-REVISTA DE HISTORIA DE LAS UNIVERSIDADES. 2016; 19 (1): 133–51. WOS:000384604900010. Publisher Full Text Birkenmaier L, Lechner CM, Wagner C: The Search for Solid Ground in Text as Data: A Systematic Review of Validation Practices and Practical Recommendations for Validation. Commun. Methods Meas. 2024; 18 (3): 249–277. Publisher Full Text Bishop L, Gray D: Chapter 7: Ethical Challenges of Publishing and Sharing Social Media Research Data. Advances in Research Ethics and Integrity. Woodfield K, editor. Emerald Publishing Limited; 2017; vol. 2 . . Publisher Full Text Bowman ND: On the Continued Need for Replication in Media and Communication Research. Media Commun. 2024; 12 (March): 7935. Publisher Full Text Bracco L: Promoting Open Science through Bibliometrics: A Practical Guide to Build an Open Access Monitor. LIBER Quarterly: The Journal of the Association of European Research Libraries. 2022; 32 (1): 1–18. Publisher Full Text Braun V, Clarke V: Reporting Guidelines for Qualitative Research: A Values-Based Approach. Qual. Res. Psychol. 2025; 22 (2): 399–438. Publisher Full Text Brazzo L, Rodriguez KJ: Data Sharing, Holocaust Documentation and the Digital Humanities: Best Practices, Case Studies and Benefits. Umanistica Digitale. 2019; 4 (March): i–vi. Publisher Full Text Breznau N: Does Sociology Need Open Science?. Societies. 2021; 11 (1): 9. Publisher Full Text Broadhead S, Gonnet H: Creative Dilemmas: Balancing Open Access and Integrity. Exchanges: The Interdisciplinary Research Journal. 2025; 12 (3): 31–49. Publisher Full Text Buchanan F, Capanni N, González-Vélez H: Fine Artists of the World Unite: Bridging Heterogeneous Distributed Open Data Sources of Fine Art. International Conference on Information Society (i-Society 2011). 2011. June. 224–29. Publisher Full Text Bulley J, Sahin O: Practice Research - Report 1: What Is Practice Research? And Report 2: How Can Practice Research Be Shared? Report. Practice Research Advisory Group UK (PRAG-UK); 2021. Publisher Full Text Bulock C: Public Access to Federally Funded Research. Ser. Rev. 2023; 49 (1–2): 51–53. Publisher Full Text Bylund C, Näslund A: Beyond Numbers: Visual and Textual Diversity in the Online Art Database. Museum Management and Curatorship. 2024; 1–21. Publisher Full Text Cai J: Promoting Conceptual Replications in Educational Research. Educ. Res. Eval. 2022; 27 (1–2): 8–11. Publisher Full Text Carroll SR, Garba I, Figueroa-Rodríguez OL, et al. : The CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance. Data Sci. J. 2020; 19 (November): 43. Publisher Full Text Chiarcos C, Hellmann S, Nordhoff S: Towards a Linguistic Linked Open Data Cloud: The Open Linguistics Working Group. Traitement Automatique Des Langues (France). 2011; 52 (3): 245–275. Reference Source Chtena N, Alperin JP, Morales E, et al. : Towards an Inclusive Open Science: Examining EDI and Public Participation in Policy Documents across Europe and the Americas. R. Soc. Open Sci. 2025; 12 (4): 240857. Publisher Full Text Clark AM, Sousa BJ: A Manifesto for Better Research Failure. Int J Qual Methods. 2020; 19 (January): 1609406920973858. Publisher Full Text CO-OPERASBertino A, Tóth-Czifra E: CO-OPERAS-SSHOC - Research Data in the SSH - Wksp Report - Goettingen 30012020. Zenodo. 2020. Publisher Full Text CO-OPERASGiglia E: CO-OPERAS- SSH FAIR Data - Wksp Report - Brussels 03032020. Zenodo. 2020. Publisher Full Text Coker C, Ozment K: Building the Women in Book History Bibliography, or Digital Enumerative Bibliography as Preservation of Feminist Labor. Digital Humanities Quarterly. 2019; 13 (3). Reference Source Cole NL, Ulpts S, Bochynska A, et al. : Reproducibility and Replicability of Qualitative Research: An Integrative Review of Concepts, Barriers and Enablers.2024. Preprint, MetaArXiv, December 23. Publisher Full Text Cole NL, Reichmann S, Ross-Hellauer T: Toward Equitable Open Research: Stakeholder Co-Created Recommendations for Research Institutions, Funders and Researchers. R. Soc. Open Sci. 2023; 10 (2): 221460. Publisher Full Text Cook BG, Beahm LA, Myers AM, et al. : Open Science and Special Education Research. Advances in Learning and Behavioral Disabilities. Cook BG, Tankersley M, Landrum TJ, editors. Emerald Publishing Limited; 2021. Publisher Full Text Cook BG, Lloyd JW, Mellor D, et al. : Promoting Open Science to Increase the Trustworthiness of Evidence in Special Education. Except. Child. 2018; 85 (1): 104–118. Publisher Full Text Cook K: Open Data as Public Archaeology: The Monumental Archive Project. AP: Online Journal in Public Archaeology. 2018; 8 (2): 177–194. Publisher Full Text Cota GM: Ecological Rewriting: Situated Engagements With The Chernobyl Herbarium. Open Humanites Press; 2023. Reference Source Cova F, Strickland B, Abatista A, et al. : Estimating the Reproducibility of Experimental Philosophy. Rev. Philos. Psychol. 2021; 12 (1): 9–44. Publisher Full Text Cramer R: Trust, Transparency, and Process. Qualitative & Multi-Method Research. 2018; 16 (2): 10–13. Publisher Full Text Dadon-Golan Z, Ziderman A: Data Sharing in Academic Publications: The Case of Education Journals. Educ. Inf. 2024; 40 (2): 179–193. Publisher Full Text Dafoe A: Science Deserves Better: The Imperative to Share Complete Replication Files. Polit. Sci. Polit. 2014; 47 (1): 60–66. Publisher Full Text Damian E, Meuleman B, Van Oorschot W: Transparency and Replication in Cross-National Survey Research: Identification of Problems and Possible Solutions. Sociol. Methods Res. 2022; 51 (2): 499–526. Publisher Full Text Oliveira D, Moreira T, Marques FPJ, et al. : Towards an Inclusive Agenda of Open Science for Communication Research: A Latin American Approach. J. Commun. 2021; jqab025. Publisher Full Text Dickie JF: Community Translation and Oral Performance of Some Praise Psalms within the Zulu Community. The Bible Translator. 2017; 68 (3): 253–268. Publisher Full Text Dienlin T, Johannes N, Bowman ND, et al. : An Agenda for Open Science in Communication. J. Commun. 2021; 71 (1): 1–26. Publisher Full Text Dutta M, Ramasubramanian S, Barrett M, et al. : Decolonizing Open Science: Southern Interventions. J. Commun. 2021; jqab027. Publisher Full Text Dutta U: Addressing Contextual Challenges in Underserved Indigenous Spaces of the Global South: In Search of an Approach Based on Unlearning, Co-Learning, and Relearning. Int J Qual Methods. 2019; 18 (January): 1609406919891267. Publisher Full Text Evans J, Moore AV, Bailey H, et al. : Practice Research Voices (PRVOICES): Final Report and Recommendations. Project report. University of Westminster; 2023. Publisher Full Text Facer K, Enright B: Creating Living Knowledge: The Connected Communities Programme, Community–University Relationships and the Participatory Turn in the Production of Knowledge. University of Bristol and AHRC Connected Communities Programme; 2016. Reference Source Ferguson J, Littman R, Christensen G, et al. : Survey of Open Science Practices and Attitudes in the Social Sciences. Nat. Commun. 2023; 14 (1): 5401. Publisher Full Text Ferreira BB, Borges MM: The Epistemic Cultures of the Digital Humanities and Their Relation to Open Science: Contributions to the Open Humanities Discourse.2022. Paper presented at BOBCATSSS 2022. BOBCATSSS 2022, May 23. Publisher Full Text Field SM: Open With Care! Consent, Context, and Co-Production in Open Qualitative Research. Open Science Framework. 2025. Preprint. July 2. Publisher Full Text Finger R, Henningsen A, Höhler J, et al. : Open Science in Agricultural Economics. Q Open. 2025; 5 (3): qoae029. Publisher Full Text Fisher M, Fradley M, Flohr P, et al. : Ethical Considerations for Remote Sensing and Open Data in Relation to the Endangered Archaeology in the Middle East and North Africa Project. Archaeol. Prospect. 2021; 28 (3): 279–292. Publisher Full Text Fleming JI, Wilson SE, Espinas D, et al. : Special Education Researchers’ Knowledge, Attitudes, and Reported Use of Open Practices. Remedial Spec. Educ. 2025; 46 (5): 359–370. Publisher Full Text Fox J, Pearce KE, Massanari AL, et al. : Open Science, Closed Doors? Countering Marginalization through an Agenda for Ethical, Inclusive Research in Communication. J. Commun. 2021; jqab029. Publisher Full Text Gallon E, Bowman J: Reimagining the Humanities Book: Bringing Living With Machines to Life Through Experimental Publishing Workflows and Open Research Practices. Learned Publishing. 2025; 38 (4): e2025. Publisher Full Text Gehlbach H, Robinson CD: Mitigating Illusory Results through Preregistration in Education. J. Res. Educ. Effect. 2018; 11 (2): 296–315. Publisher Full Text Ghiso MP, Campano G, Schwab ER, et al. : Mentoring in Research-Practice Partnerships: Toward Democratizing Expertise. AERA Open. 2019; 5 (4): 2332858419879448. Publisher Full Text Greenhalgh T, Peacock R: Effectiveness and Efficiency of Search Methods in Systematic Reviews of Complex Evidence: Audit of Primary Sources. BMJ. 2005; 331 (7524): 1064–1065. Publisher Full Text Greenspan RL, Baggett L, Boutwell BB: Open Science Practices in Criminology and Criminal Justice Journals. J. Exp. Criminol. 2024. ahead of print, September 12. Publisher Full Text Groot B, Haveman A, Abma T: Relational, Ethically Sound Co-Production in Mental Health Care Research: Epistemic Injustice and the Need for an Ethics of Care. Crit. Public Health. 2022; 32 (2): 230–240. Publisher Full Text Gross KM, Lampert C, Lapworth E: Optimizing Merged Metadata Standards for Online Community History: A Linked Open Data Approach Organization, Representation and Description through the Digital Age: Information in Libraries, Archives and Museums. Christine M, editor. Angel and Caroline Fuchs. De Gruyter Saur; 2018. Reference Source Grossmann M: Open Science Reform and Social Science Progress. How Social Science Got Better. Grossmann M, editor. New York: Oxford University Press; 1st ed.2021. Publisher Full Text Gualandi B, Pareschi L, Peroni S: What Do We Mean by “Data”? A Proposed Classification of Data Types in the Arts and Humanities. J. Doc. 2022; 79 (7): 51–71. Publisher Full Text Haim M, Jungblut M: How Open Is Communication Science? Open-Science Principles in the Field. Ann. Int. Commun. Assoc. 2023; 47 (3): 338–357. Publisher Full Text Hanchard MS, Pineda ISR: Re-Renderability as Niche Concept: Maintaining Epistemic Pluralism Amidst the Emerging Regime of Open Research.2025. Preprint, SSRN. Publisher Full Text Hanfling E: Valuing Collective Authorship in Practice as Research. J. Vis. Art Pract. 2025; 24 (1–2): 11–28. Publisher Full Text Hansson K, Dahlgren A: Open Research Data Repositories: Practices, Norms, and Metadata for Sharing Images. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2022; 73 (2): 303–316. Publisher Full Text Hardwicke TE, Wallach JD, Kidwell MC, et al. : An Empirical Assessment of Transparency and Reproducibility-Related Research Practices in the Social Sciences (2014–2017). R. Soc. Open Sci. 2020; 7 (2): 190806. Publisher Full Text Hensel PG: Reproducibility and Replicability Crisis: How Management Compares to Psychology and Economics – A Systematic Review of Literature. Eur. Manag. J. 2021; 39 (5): 577–594. Publisher Full Text Hillyer R, Posada A, Albornoz D, et al. : Framing a Situated and Inclusive Open Science: Emerging Lessons from the Open and Collaborative Science in Development Network. Expanding Perspectives on Open Science: Communities, Cultures and Diversity in Concepts and Practices. Chan L, Loizides F, editors. IOS Press; 2017. Hirschmann N: Data, Transparency, and Political Theory. Qualitative & Multi-Method Research. 2018; 16 (2): 27–30. Publisher Full Text Hope S: Bursting Paradigms: A Colour Wheel of Practice-Research. Cultural Trends. 2016; 25 (2): 74–86. Publisher Full Text Huijnen P, Huistra P: On the Use of Replications in History.2022. Version 1.1. August 29. Publisher Full Text Huma B, Joyce JB: “One Size Doesn’t Fit All”: Lessons from Interaction Analysis on Tailoring Open Science Practices to Qualitative Research. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 2023; 62 (4): 1590–1604. Publisher Full Text Humphreys L, Lewis NA, Sender K, et al. : Integrating Qualitative Methods and Open Science: Five Principles for More Trustworthy Research. J. Commun. 2021; jqab026. Publisher Full Text Hyvönen E: Linked Open Data Infrastructure for Digital Humanities in Finland. Digital Humanities in the Nordic and Baltic Countries Publications. 2020; 3 (1): 254–259. Publisher Full Text Jacobs AM, Büthe T, Arjona A, et al. : The Qualitative Transparency Deliberations: Insights and Implications. Perspect. Polit. 2021; 19 (1): 171–208. Publisher Full Text Jacobs N, Williamson L, Vines T, et al. : UKRN Working Paper 9: UKRN Open Research Indicators: Final Report. Zenodo. 2026. Preprint. February 12. Publisher Full Text Jacobs N, Tolmie A, Sideropoulos V, et al. : ‘Working Paper No 6: Exploring Research Transparency, Positionality and Reproducibility’.2024. Chyd4_v1. Preprint, OSF Preprints, April 11. Publisher Full Text Jackson T, Knowles C, McLaughlin S, et al. : Sustaining Practice Assets for Research, Knowledge, Learning and Engagement (SPARKLE): Final Report and Recommendations. Report. University of Leeds; 2023. Reference Source Jamieson MK, Govaart GH, Pownall M: Reflexivity in Quantitative Research: A Rationale and Beginner’s Guide. Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass. 2023; 17 (4): e12735. Publisher Full Text Jeng W, He D: Surveying Research Data-Sharing Practices in US Social Sciences: A Knowledge Infrastructure-Inspired Conceptual Framework. Online Inf. Rev. 2022; 46 (7): 1275–1292. Publisher Full Text Jensenius AR: Best versus Good Enough Practices for Open Music Research. Empirical Musicology Review. 2021; 16 (1): 5–15. WOS:000731307900002. Publisher Full Text Kedron P, Holler J, Bardin S: Reproducible Research Practices and Barriers to Reproducible Research in Geography: Insights from a Survey. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 2024; 114 (2): 369–386. Publisher Full Text Kember S: Distributed Open Collaborative Scholarship. Commonplace. 2020. ahead of print, March 15. Publisher Full Text Kiesewetter R: Experiments towards Editing Otherwise Culture Machine. Open Humanities Press; 2024; vol. 23 . : 1–36. (Publishing After Progress). Reference Source Kinpaisby M: Taking Stock of Participatory Geographies: Envisioning the Communiversity. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 2008; 33 (3): 292–299. Publisher Full Text Knöchelmann M: Open Science in the Humanities, or: Open Humanities?. Publica. 2019; 7 (4): 65. Publisher Full Text Knorr-Cetina K: Epistemic Cultures: How Science Makes Knowledge. Harvard University Press; 1999. Koopman S: Will the Real People’s Geography Please Stand up? Community, Public, and Participatory Geographies in Conversation. Geogr. Compass. 2024; 18 (4): e12745. Publisher Full Text Kotis K, Angelis S, Chondrogianni M, et al. : Children’s Art Museum Collections as Linked Open Data. International Journal of Metadata, Semantics and Ontologies. 2021; 15 (1): 60–70. Publisher Full Text Kudera J, Bamberg C, Burch T, et al. : LODinG: Linked Open Data in the Humanities. Proceedings of the 9th Workshop on Linked Data in Linguistics @ LREC-COLING 2024. Chiarcos C, Gkirtzou K, Ionov M, et al. , editors. ELRA and ICCL; 2024. Reference Source Laporte S: Preprint for the Humanities – Fiction or a Real Possibility?. Studia Historiae Scientiarum. 2017; 16 (December): 367–378. Publisher Full Text Late E, Skov M, Kumpulainen S: To Share or Not to Share? Image Data Sharing in the Social Sciences and Humanities. Information Research an International Electronic Journal. 2024; 29 (2): 386–400. Publisher Full Text Leavy P: The Oxford Handbook of Methods for Public Scholarship. Oxford University Press; 2019. Publisher Full Text LeBeau B, Ellison S, Aloe AM: Reproducible Analyses in Education Research. Rev. Res. Educ. 2021; 45 (1): 195–222. Publisher Full Text Leonelli S: Philosophy of Open Science. Cambridge University Press; 1st ed2023. Publisher Full Text Lewis NA: Open Communication Science: A Primer on Why and Some Recommendations for How. Commun. Methods Meas. 2020; 14 (2): 71–82. Publisher Full Text Liem CCS, Mostert C: Can’t Trust the Feeling?: 21st International Society for Music Information Retrieval Conference. Proceedings of the 21st International Society for Music Information Retrieval Conference. 2020; 240–47. Reference Source Liu M: Whose Open Science Are We Talking about? From Open Science in Psychology to Open Science in Applied Linguistics. Lang. Teach. 2023; 56 (4): 443–450. Publisher Full Text Liu M, Sang Y, Hiver P, et al. : The Ulysses Pact: An Emic Perspective on Registered Reports in Applied Linguistics. J. Second Lang. Stud. 2025; 8 (2): 192–218. Publisher Full Text Logan JAR, Hayward AL, Swanz LE, et al. : Education Researchers’ Beliefs and Barriers towards Data Sharing. Qual. Quant. 2025; 59 (5): 4061–4075. Publisher Full Text Ma R: Toward an Open Humanities Data: Current States, Challenges, and Cases. Intelligent Computing for Cultural Heritage. Routledge; 1st Edition.2024. Publisher Full Text Majic S: Not There for the Taking: DA-RT and Policy Research. Qualitative & Multi-Method Research. 2018; 16 (2): 14–16. Publisher Full Text Mak MHC: Corpus Linguistics Will Benefit from Greater Adoption of Pre-Registration: A Novice-Friendly Split-Corpus Approach to Pre-Registration. Applied Corpus Linguistics. 2024; 4 (3): 100111. Publisher Full Text Makel MC, Plucker JA: Facts Are More Important Than Novelty: Replication in the Education Sciences. Educ. Res. 2014; 43 (6): 304–316. Publisher Full Text Markowitz DM, Song H, Taylor SH: Tracing the Adoption and Effects of Open Science in Communication Research. J. Commun. 2021; jqab030. Publisher Full Text Matthews AA, Rantanen J: Legal Research as a Collective Enterprise: An Examination of Data Availability in Empirical Legal Scholarship. The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization. 2025; 41 (2): 570–603. Publisher Full Text McCrae JP, Chiarcos C, Bond F, et al. : The Open Linguistics Working Group: Developing the Linguistic Linked Open Data Cloud. Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’16). Calzolari N, Choukri K, Declerck T, et al. , editors. European Language Resources Association (ELRA); 2016. Reference Source McEwan B, Carpenter CJ, Westerman D: On Replication in Communication Science. Commun. Stud. 2018; 69 (3): 235–241. Publisher Full Text McGeown S, Oxley E; Love To Read Practice Partners et al. : Working at the Intersection of Research and Practice: The Love to Read Project. Int. J. Educ. Res. 2023; 117 : 102134. Publisher Full Text Meece S, Robinson A, Gramstadt M-T: Engaging Researchers With the World’s First Scholarly Arts Repositories: Ten Years After the UK’s Kultur Project. New Rev. Acad. Librariansh. 2017; 23 (2–3): 209–232. Publisher Full Text Messer S: Documenting Practice Research: Constraints and Opportunities. J. Eng. Des. 2025; 36 (3): 405–438. Publisher Full Text Miele R, Root J, Godderis R, et al. : Towards a Feminist Research Ethics of Care: Reflections, Lessons, and Methodological Considerations for Doing Research During a Pandemic. Studies in Social Justice. 2024; 18 (1): 125–142. Publisher Full Text Monroe KR: The Rush to Transparency: DA-RT and the Potential Dangers for Qualitative Research. Perspect. Polit. 2018; 16 (1): 141–148. Publisher Full Text Moore S: Publishing Beyond the Market: Open Access, Care, and the Commons. Digital Culture Books. University of Michigan Press; 2025. Publisher Full Text MORPHSS: Catalogue of Open Research Practices in the Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences.2026. Reference Source Munafò M: Open Science and Research Reproducibility. Ecancermedicalscience. 2016; 10 (June). Publisher Full Text Murphy C, Thomas FP: Open Science Gathers Momentum: Implications for Medical and Scientific Research. J. Spinal Cord Med. 2023; 46 (6): 873–874. Publisher Full Text Nordtveit BH: Data Sharing in Comparative and International Education. Comp. Educ. Rev. 2018; 62 (1): 1–4. Publisher Full Text Oksanen E, Rantala H, Tuominen J, et al. : Digital Humanities Solutions for Pan-European Numismatic and Archaeological Heritage Based on Linked Open Data. Digital Humanities in the Nordic and Baltic Countries Publications. 2022; 4 (1): 352–360. Publisher Full Text Orozco V, Bontemps C, Maigné E, et al. : HOW TO MAKE A PIE: REPRODUCIBLE RESEARCH FOR EMPIRICAL ECONOMICS AND ECONOMETRICS. J. Econ. Surv. 2020; 34 (5): 1134–1169. Publisher Full Text Pack Sheffield J: Open Peer Review: Collective Intelligence as a Framework for Theorizing Approaches to Peer Review in the Humanities. NANO: New American Notes Online, English Language and Literature Commons. 2013; 3 (January). Reference Source Peels R, Bouter L: The Possibility and Desirability of Replication in the Humanities. Palgrave Communications. 2018; 4 (1): 95. Publisher Full Text Peels R, Van Den Brink G, Van Eyghen H, et al. : Introduction: Replicating John Hedley Brooke’s Work on the History of Science and Religion. Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science. 2024; 59 (2). Publisher Full Text Penders B, Britt Holbrook J, De Rijcke S: Rinse and Repeat: Understanding the Value of Replication across Different Ways of Knowing. Publica. 2019; 7 (3): 52. Publisher Full Text Penuel WR, Hill HC: Building a Knowledge Base on Research-Practice Partnerships: Introduction to the Special Topic Collection. AERA Open. 2019; 5 (4): 2332858419891950. Publisher Full Text Peters MA: Open Science, Philosophy and Peer Review. Educ. Philos. Theory. 2014; 46 (3): 215–219. Publisher Full Text Peters MA, Besley T, Arndt S: Experimenting with Academic Subjectivity: Collective Writing, Peer Production and Collective Intelligence. Open Review of Educational Research. 2019; 6 (1): 26–40. Publisher Full Text Pinfield S: Achieving Global Open Access: The Need for Scientific, Epistemic and Participatory Openness. Routledge; 1st ed2024. Publisher Full Text Pownall M, Talbot CV, Kilby L, et al. : Opportunities, Challenges and Tensions: Open Science through a Lens of Qualitative Social Psychology. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 2023; 62 (4): 1581–1589. Publisher Full Text Pridemore WA, Makel MC, Plucker JA: Replication in Criminology and the Social Sciences. Annual Review of Criminology. 2018; 1 (1): 19–38. Publisher Full Text Prosser AMB, Brown O, Augustine GL, Ellis DA: It’s Time to Join the Conversation: Visions of the Future for Qualitative Transparency and Openness in Management and Organisation Studies.2024. Preprint, SocArXiv, May 30. Publisher Full Text Prosser AMB, Hamshaw RJT, Meyer J, et al. : When Open Data Closes the Door: A Critical Examination of the Past, Present and the Potential Future for Open Data Guidelines in Journals. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 2023; 62 (4): 1635–1653. Publisher Full Text Queffelec A, Maureille B, Arzarello M, et al. : Peer Community In Archaeology: A Community-Driven Free and Transparent System for Preprints Peer-Reviewing. Archeologia e Calcolatori. 2023; 34 (1): 125–134. Publisher Full Text Quigley N: Open Access in the Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences: Complex Perceptions of Researchers and Implications for Research Support. LIBER Quarterly: The Journal of the Association of European Research Libraries. 2021; 31 (1): 1. Publisher Full Text Rafols I, Meijer I, Molas-Gallart J: Monitoring Open Science as Transformative Change: Towards a Systemic Framework. F1000Res. 2024; 13 (April): 320. Publisher Full Text Renbarger R, Adelson JL, Rosenberg JM, et al. : Champions of Transparency in Education: What Journal Reviewers Can Do to Encourage Open Science Practices. Gift. Child Q. 2023; 67 (4): 337–351. Publisher Full Text Resnik DB, Kennedy CE: Balancing Scientific and Community Interests in Community-Based Participatory Research. Account. Res. 2010; 17 (4): 198–210. Publisher Full Text Ritterbusch AE: Empathy at Knifepoint: The Dangers of Research and Lite Pedagogies for Social Justice Movements. Antipode. 2019; 51 (4): 1296–1317. Publisher Full Text Robinson-Garcia N, Costas R, Van Leeuwen TN: Open Access Uptake by Universities Worldwide. PeerJ. 2020; 8 (July): e9410. Publisher Full Text Rosas C, Battistam LP, Fonseca LC, et al. : Tradução comunizante: feminismo e política do comuns. Mutatis Mutandis. Revista Latinoamericana de Traducción. 2025; 18 (2): 504–520. Publisher Full Text Rose-Steel T, Turnator E: Medieval Music in Linked Open Data: A Case Study on Linking Medieval Motets. International Journal of Humanities and Arts Computing. 2016; 10 (1): 36–50. Publisher Full Text Ross L: Notes From the Field : Learning Cultural Humility Through Critical Incidents and Central Challenges in Community-Based Participatory Research. J. Community Pract. 2010; 18 (2–3): 315–335. Publisher Full Text Ross-Hellauer T, Reichmann S, Cole NL, et al. : Dynamics of Cumulative Advantage and Threats to Equity in Open Science: A Scoping Review. R. Soc. Open Sci. 2022; 9 (1): 211032. Publisher Full Text Schumann S, van der Vegt PG , Schuurman B: Towards Open and Reproducible Terrorism Studies: Current Trends and next Steps. Perspectives on Terrorism. 2019; 13 (5): 61–73. Schwedler JM, Simmons E, Smith N: Ethnography and Participant Observation. SSRN Electron. J. 2019. Qualitative Transparency Deliberations. Publisher Full Text Severin A, Egger M, Eve MP, et al. : Discipline-Specific Open Access Publishing Practices and Barriers to Change: An Evidence-Based Review. F1000Res. 2018; 7 (December): 1925. Publisher Full Text Sewell A: Giving Voice to Community: Embodied Scholarship, Generative Discussion, and Other Affordances of Scholarly Podcasting. The Journal of Electronic Publishing. 2025; 28 (1): 1. Publisher Full Text Shaw A, Scharkow M, Wang ZJ: Opening a Conversation on Open Communication Research. J. Commun. 2021; jqab033. Publisher Full Text Silverstein P, Elman C, Montoya A, et al. : A Guide for Social Science Journal Editors on Easing into Open Science. Research Integrity and Peer Review. 2024; 9 (1): 2. Publisher Full Text Skains RL: Creative Practice as Research: Discourse on Methodology. Media Pract. Educ. 2018; 19 (1): 82–97. Publisher Full Text Steltenpohl CN, Mawhinney B, Karhulahti V-M, et al. : Open Science for Qualitative Research. BMJ Evidence-B#ased Medicine. 2025; bmjebm-2024-113532. Publisher Full Text Steltenpohl CN, Lustick H, Meyer MS, et al. : Rethinking Transparency and Rigor from a Qualitative Open Science Perspective. Journal of Trial and Error. 2023; 4 (1): 47–59. Publisher Full Text Stern N, Guédon J-C, Jensen TW: Crystals of Knowledge Production. An Intercontinental Conversation about Open Science and the Humanities. Nordic Perspectives on Open Science. 2015; 1 : 1–24. Publisher Full Text Sturgeon D: Crowdsourcing the Historical Record: Creating Linked Open Data for Chinese History at Scale. International Journal of Humanities and Arts Computing. 2022; 16 (1): 50–63. Publisher Full Text Suchikova Y, Nazarovets S: Extending the CARE Principles: Managing Data for Vulnerable Communities in Wartime and Humanitarian Crises. Sci. Data. 2025; 12 (1): 420. Publisher Full Text Sui D, Kedron P: Reproducibility and Replicability in the Context of the Contested Identities of Geography. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 2021; 111 (5): 1275–1283. Publisher Full Text Tamminen KA, Bundon A, Smith B, et al. : Considerations for Making Informed Choices about Engaging in Open Qualitative Research. Qual. Res. Sport, Exerc. Health. 2021; 13 (5): 864–886. Publisher Full Text Taurino G: Open-Data, Open-Source, Open-Knowledge: Towards Open-Access Research in Media Studies. The Palgrave Handbook of Digital and Public Humanities. Schwan A, Thomson T, editors. Springer International Publishing; 2022. Publisher Full Text Torka A-K, Mazei J, Bosco FA, et al. : How Well Are Open Science Practices Implemented in Industrial and Organizational Psychology and Management?. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psy. 2023; 32 (4): 461–475. Publisher Full Text Tóth-Czifra E: The Risk of Losing Thick Description: Data Management Challenges Arts and Humanities Face in the Evolving FAIR Data Ecosystem.2019. April. Reference Source Tripp AM: Transparency and Integrity in Conducting Field Research on Politics in Challenging Contexts. Perspect. Polit. 2018; 16 (3): 728–738. Publisher Full Text Tsai AC, Kohrt BA, Matthews LT, et al. : Promises and Pitfalls of Data Sharing in Qualitative Research. Soc. Sci. Med. 2016; 169 (November): 191–198. Publisher Full Text Ulpts S: Responsible Assessment of What Research? Beware of Epistemic Diversity!. Meta-Psychology. 2024; 8 (March). Publisher Full Text UKRI: Open Research [UKRI Policies and Guidance].2025. Reference Source . UNESCO: UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science. UNESCO; 2021. Publisher Full Text Van Der Zee T, Reich J: Open Education Science. AERA Open. 2018; 4 (3): 2332858418787466. Publisher Full Text Dijk V, Wilhelmina CS, Hart SA: Open Science in Education Sciences. J. Learn. Disabil. 2021; 54 (2): 139–152. Publisher Full Text Wolfram D, Wang P, Park H: Open Peer Review: The Current Landscape and Emerging Models. The 17th International Conference on Scientometrics & Informetrics, September 2-5, 2019, Rome, Italy, January 1. 2019. Reference Source Footnotes 1 While the term ‘Open Science’ is often used interchangeably with ‘open research’, we use the latter in this article to emphasise a distinction between the broader phenomenon of open research and STEM-focused conceptions of openness. 2 See also de Oliveira et al. (2021, 787) and Rafols et al. (2024, 4) . 3 This source was selected for its provision of a granular and comprehensive list of AHSS disciplines. 4 E.g. Bennett (2021) , Huma and Joyce (2023) , Pownall et al. (2023) . 5 While open access to journal articles, being already well-documented, is not a key area of focus in the project, open longform publishing is included in the catalogue as an emergent practice; material on this practice was gathered through targeted searches. 6 These were Accountability in Research , IASSIST Quarterly , International Journal of Qualitative Methods , International Journal of Social Research Methodology , Journal of Electronic Publishing , Publications (Basel) , Qualitative & Multi-method Research , Qualitative Inquiry and Qualitative Research: QR. 7 While the definition of these concepts varies, we follow the usage that ‘[r]eproducibility is obtaining results consistent with a prior study’ by using the original data and analytic techniques, while replication occurs when ‘new data are collected and the same, or similar, methods are used to produce a [comparable] result’ ( Sui and Kedron, 2021 , 1276). Both concepts depend on sufficient transparency of data and methods in the original study, and both presuppose the research’s independence from the researcher’s standpoint. 8 On this point, see also Cole et al. (2024, 16) . 9 Concerns were also raised about the sharability of specific data types such as proprietary data ( Hensel, 2021 ) social media data ( Bishop and Gray, 2017 ), and image data ( Late et al., 2024 ). 10 For a series of individual dissenting perspectives in political science, see also Cramer (2018) , Hirschmann (2018) , Majic (2018) , and Tripp (2018) . 11 These are only a small selection of a much wider group of participatory research practices, which it was not possible to catalogue within the constraints of the project. 12 Though the former is preferable from a discoverability and preservation point of view, there is a long history of such appendices in publications like ethnographic books. 13 In our framing of this point in terms of congruence, we draw on Braun and Clarke’s (2025 , 414-5) emphasis on reflexive openness regarding methodological congruence as a point of focus in evaluating research. Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 15 Apr 2026 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment Author details Author details 1 University of Sheffield School of Information, Journalism and Communication, Sheffield, UK 2 Cambridge University Library, Cambridge, UK 3 Cambridge Digital Humanities, Cambridge, UK Jenni Adams Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Miranda Barnes Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Samuel Moore Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Stephen Pinfield Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Competing interests Non-financial competing interests JA was a contributor to the UKRN Open Research Indicators project mentioned in brief in this article (Jacobs et al., 2026). SP is an Editor of MetaROR (MetaResearch Open Review). Grant information Wellcome Trust (314438/Z/24/Z), the AHRC and the Research England Development Fund (there are no grant numbers for AHRC and RED). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Article Versions (1) version 1 Published: 15 Apr 2026, 15:515 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.178353.1 Copyright © 2026 Adams J et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Download Export To Sciwheel Bibtex EndNote ProCite Ref. Manager (RIS) Sente metrics Views Downloads F1000Research - - PubMed Central info_outline Data from PMC are received and updated monthly. - - Citations open_in_new 0 open_in_new 0 open_in_new SEE MORE DETAILS CITE how to cite this article Adams J, Barnes M, Moore S and Pinfield S. Cataloguing and theorising open research practices in the arts, humanities and social sciences: Problematising and diversifying ‘Open Science’ [version 1; peer review: 1 approved] . F1000Research 2026, 15 :515 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.178353.1 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS track receive updates on this article Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article. TRACK THIS ARTICLE Share Open Peer Review Current Reviewer Status: ? Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 15 Apr 2026 Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Ferreira BB and Borges MM. Reviewer Report For: Cataloguing and theorising open research practices in the arts, humanities and social sciences: Problematising and diversifying ‘Open Science’ [version 1; peer review: 1 approved] . F1000Research 2026, 15 :515 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.196728.r476056 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/15-515/v1#referee-response-476056 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 04 May 2026 Beatriz Barrocas Ferreira , University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal; Tilburg University University Library, Tilburg, North Brabant, The Netherlands Maria Manuel Borges , Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies - CEIS20, University of Coimbra Center for the Study of Law on Planning Urbanism and the Environment, Coimbra, Coimbra District, Portugal Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.196728.r476056 The manuscript addresses a question that is both conceptually and politically significant: how open research can be understood beyond dominant Open Science frameworks that have largely been shaped around STEM assumptions, particularly around reproducibility, data sharing, and technical transparency. It ... Continue reading READ ALL The manuscript addresses a question that is both conceptually and politically significant: how open research can be understood beyond dominant Open Science frameworks that have largely been shaped around STEM assumptions, particularly around reproducibility, data sharing, and technical transparency. It is a very strong, timely, and genuinely important contribution to current debates on open research in the arts, humanities, and social sciences. The authors aim to rethink openness in ways that are more sensitive to the epistemic traditions and values of AHSS. To do so, they combine a literature-based mapping exercise with the development of the MORPHSS typology, identifying six forms of openness organised across three broader categories: openness as equitable and inclusive knowledge creation, openness as the rich realisation of research, and openness as access/ible dissemination. The manuscript also offers reflections and recommendations for funders, institutions, publishers and researchers, arguing for a more inclusive and situated understanding of open research. Overall, this is an excellent manuscript. It is theoretically strong, methodologically rigorous, and well written, and makes an important intervention in a landscape where discussions of openness still too often default to STEM-based assumptions. One of its main strengths is that it does not simply argue for the inclusion of humanities practices within existing Open Science models but instead challenges the adequacy of those models themselves. The comments below are therefore intended as suggestions for strengthening what is already a very robust article. They are mostly conceptual rather than corrective. We would therefore like to leave it to the authors to take them into consideration or discard them. Main comments 1. Conceptual breadth of Open Research The manuscript’s broad and inclusive understanding of openness is one of its greatest strengths, particularly in showing how dominant definitions of Open Science have often been too narrow to account for the epistemic traditions of AHSS. At the same time, this conceptual expansion could benefit from a slightly clearer reflection on the boundaries of the term itself. The manuscript brings together several practices under the umbrella of open research, but this can also challenge conventional assumptions of best practices, raising the question of how openness is distinguished from broader notions of good scholarly practice. A more explicit clarification of where the authors see the conceptual boundaries of openness, and how openness is distinguished from broader notions of good scholarly practice, could strengthen the analytical precision of the AHSS framework without reducing its inclusiveness. 2. Recognition of existing humanities practices versus translation into Open Science vocabulary Related to the previous point, the manuscript could reflect more explicitly on whether it is identifying "genuinely" open practices, or whether it is retrospectively translating long-established humanities and qualitative research traditions into the language of Open Research. Practices such as reflexivity, participatory methods, collaborative authorship, and public scholarship did not emerge because of Open Research, and in many cases, they predate current open research agendas. The manuscript rightly highlights this, but we think the implications deserve stronger discussion. This raises the question whether the goal is to recognise that humanities fields have always practiced forms of openness that policy frameworks have failed to acknowledge, or if translating these practices into open research language risk subordinating them to policy frameworks they did not originate from. 3. Situated openness and institutional evaluation regimes One of the most important arguments in the manuscript is that openness in AHSS is often situated, contextual and resistant to binary measurement. This is particularly convincing in relation to participatory research, qualitative data sharing, CARE principles, and reflexivity. At the same time, universities, funders and assessment systems increasingly operate through indicators, compliance mechanisms and measurable outputs. This creates an important tension that we think could be explored more directly, namely on how can situated openness survive within institutional systems that depend on standardisation. The recommendations section touches on this, but a deeper reflection on the political and institutional implications could strengthen the argument. Additionally, the discussion of monitoring initiatives such as the French Open Science Monitor and the UKRN Open Research Indicators Project is important. We would suggest expanding this slightly, as it is one of the clearest examples of the tension between institutional governance and situated openness. If open research is increasingly governed through funding mandates, monitoring systems, and evaluation frameworks, there is a risk that even participatory and epistemically inclusive forms of openness become reduced to another form of compliance. 4. Distinguishing accessibility from democratisation The distinction between “availability of outputs” and “accessible communication of research” is very useful. However, it may also be helpful to make clearer the distinction between accessibility and democratisation. For example, making research available through podcasts, exhibitions or public scholarship certainly improves access and engagement, but it does not necessarily redistribute epistemic authority or participation in knowledge production. Since the manuscript makes strong claims about openness as equitable and inclusive knowledge creation, clarifying this distinction could strengthen the conceptual coherence of the framework. Minor suggestions The MORPHSS typology of forms of openness in AHSS is excellent and likely to become one of the manuscript’s most cited contributions. We wonder whether a short paragraph reflecting on how the typology might evolve over time, or where its boundaries remain intentionally open, could strengthen its long-term usefulness A minor editorial point: the reference list does not appear to be fully organised in alphabetical order and would benefit from a final check for consistency Final remarks Overall, we found this to be an excellent manuscript and a substantial, timely contribution to discussions of open research in the humanities and social sciences, both conceptually and practically. Our suggestions are intended only to help strengthen an already strong article and to sharpen some of the conceptual tensions that make it so relevant. We would also like to congratulate the authors on the quality of the work and on conducting such important research, which will be valuable not only for scholars working in AHSS, but also for broader debates on the future of open research and scholarly communication. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Not applicable Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? No source data required Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Scholarly communication, open research, critical librarianship, academic libraries We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Ferreira BB and Borges MM. Reviewer Report For: Cataloguing and theorising open research practices in the arts, humanities and social sciences: Problematising and diversifying ‘Open Science’ [version 1; peer review: 1 approved] . F1000Research 2026, 15 :515 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.196728.r476056 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/15-515/v1#referee-response-476056 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 15 Apr 2026 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment keyboard_arrow_left keyboard_arrow_right Open Peer Review Reviewer Status info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Reviewer Reports Invited Reviewers 1 Version 1 15 Apr 26 read Beatriz Barrocas Ferreira , University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal; Tilburg University University Library, Tilburg, The Netherlands Maria Manuel Borges , University of Coimbra Center for the Study of Law on Planning Urbanism and the Environment, Coimbra, Portugal Comments on this article All Comments (0) Add a comment Sign up for content alerts Sign Up You are now signed up to receive this alert Browse by related subjects keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2026 Ferreira B et al. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 04 May 2026 | for Version 1 Beatriz Barrocas Ferreira , University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal; Tilburg University University Library, Tilburg, North Brabant, The Netherlands Maria Manuel Borges , Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies - CEIS20, University of Coimbra Center for the Study of Law on Planning Urbanism and the Environment, Coimbra, Coimbra District, Portugal 0 Views copyright © 2026 Ferreira B et al. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The manuscript addresses a question that is both conceptually and politically significant: how open research can be understood beyond dominant Open Science frameworks that have largely been shaped around STEM assumptions, particularly around reproducibility, data sharing, and technical transparency. It is a very strong, timely, and genuinely important contribution to current debates on open research in the arts, humanities, and social sciences. The authors aim to rethink openness in ways that are more sensitive to the epistemic traditions and values of AHSS. To do so, they combine a literature-based mapping exercise with the development of the MORPHSS typology, identifying six forms of openness organised across three broader categories: openness as equitable and inclusive knowledge creation, openness as the rich realisation of research, and openness as access/ible dissemination. The manuscript also offers reflections and recommendations for funders, institutions, publishers and researchers, arguing for a more inclusive and situated understanding of open research. Overall, this is an excellent manuscript. It is theoretically strong, methodologically rigorous, and well written, and makes an important intervention in a landscape where discussions of openness still too often default to STEM-based assumptions. One of its main strengths is that it does not simply argue for the inclusion of humanities practices within existing Open Science models but instead challenges the adequacy of those models themselves. The comments below are therefore intended as suggestions for strengthening what is already a very robust article. They are mostly conceptual rather than corrective. We would therefore like to leave it to the authors to take them into consideration or discard them. Main comments 1. Conceptual breadth of Open Research The manuscript’s broad and inclusive understanding of openness is one of its greatest strengths, particularly in showing how dominant definitions of Open Science have often been too narrow to account for the epistemic traditions of AHSS. At the same time, this conceptual expansion could benefit from a slightly clearer reflection on the boundaries of the term itself. The manuscript brings together several practices under the umbrella of open research, but this can also challenge conventional assumptions of best practices, raising the question of how openness is distinguished from broader notions of good scholarly practice. A more explicit clarification of where the authors see the conceptual boundaries of openness, and how openness is distinguished from broader notions of good scholarly practice, could strengthen the analytical precision of the AHSS framework without reducing its inclusiveness. 2. Recognition of existing humanities practices versus translation into Open Science vocabulary Related to the previous point, the manuscript could reflect more explicitly on whether it is identifying "genuinely" open practices, or whether it is retrospectively translating long-established humanities and qualitative research traditions into the language of Open Research. Practices such as reflexivity, participatory methods, collaborative authorship, and public scholarship did not emerge because of Open Research, and in many cases, they predate current open research agendas. The manuscript rightly highlights this, but we think the implications deserve stronger discussion. This raises the question whether the goal is to recognise that humanities fields have always practiced forms of openness that policy frameworks have failed to acknowledge, or if translating these practices into open research language risk subordinating them to policy frameworks they did not originate from. 3. Situated openness and institutional evaluation regimes One of the most important arguments in the manuscript is that openness in AHSS is often situated, contextual and resistant to binary measurement. This is particularly convincing in relation to participatory research, qualitative data sharing, CARE principles, and reflexivity. At the same time, universities, funders and assessment systems increasingly operate through indicators, compliance mechanisms and measurable outputs. This creates an important tension that we think could be explored more directly, namely on how can situated openness survive within institutional systems that depend on standardisation. The recommendations section touches on this, but a deeper reflection on the political and institutional implications could strengthen the argument. Additionally, the discussion of monitoring initiatives such as the French Open Science Monitor and the UKRN Open Research Indicators Project is important. We would suggest expanding this slightly, as it is one of the clearest examples of the tension between institutional governance and situated openness. If open research is increasingly governed through funding mandates, monitoring systems, and evaluation frameworks, there is a risk that even participatory and epistemically inclusive forms of openness become reduced to another form of compliance. 4. Distinguishing accessibility from democratisation The distinction between “availability of outputs” and “accessible communication of research” is very useful. However, it may also be helpful to make clearer the distinction between accessibility and democratisation. For example, making research available through podcasts, exhibitions or public scholarship certainly improves access and engagement, but it does not necessarily redistribute epistemic authority or participation in knowledge production. Since the manuscript makes strong claims about openness as equitable and inclusive knowledge creation, clarifying this distinction could strengthen the conceptual coherence of the framework. Minor suggestions The MORPHSS typology of forms of openness in AHSS is excellent and likely to become one of the manuscript’s most cited contributions. We wonder whether a short paragraph reflecting on how the typology might evolve over time, or where its boundaries remain intentionally open, could strengthen its long-term usefulness A minor editorial point: the reference list does not appear to be fully organised in alphabetical order and would benefit from a final check for consistency Final remarks Overall, we found this to be an excellent manuscript and a substantial, timely contribution to discussions of open research in the humanities and social sciences, both conceptually and practically. Our suggestions are intended only to help strengthen an already strong article and to sharpen some of the conceptual tensions that make it so relevant. We would also like to congratulate the authors on the quality of the work and on conducting such important research, which will be valuable not only for scholars working in AHSS, but also for broader debates on the future of open research and scholarly communication. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Not applicable Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? No source data required Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Scholarly communication, open research, critical librarianship, academic libraries We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Ferreira BB and Borges MM. Peer Review Report For: Cataloguing and theorising open research practices in the arts, humanities and social sciences: Problematising and diversifying ‘Open Science’ [version 1; peer review: 1 approved] . F1000Research 2026, 15 :515 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.196728.r476056) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/15-515/v1#referee-response-476056 Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Adjust parameters to alter display View on desktop for interactive features Includes Interactive Elements View on desktop for interactive features Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Stay Updated Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles Register with F1000Research Already registered? Sign in Not now, thanks close PLEASE NOTE If you are an AUTHOR of this article, please check that you signed in with the account associated with this article otherwise we cannot automatically identify your role as an author and your comment will be labelled as a “User Comment”. If you are a REVIEWER of this article, please check that you have signed in with the account associated with this article and then go to your account to submit your report, please do not post your review here. If you do not have access to your original account, please contact us . All commenters must hold a formal affiliation as per our Policies . The information that you give us will be displayed next to your comment. User comments must be in English, comprehensible and relevant to the article under discussion. We reserve the right to remove any comments that we consider to be inappropriate, offensive or otherwise in breach of the User Comment Terms and Conditions . Commenters must not use a comment for personal attacks. When criticisms of the article are based on unpublished data, the data should be made available. I accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions Please confirm that you accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions. Affiliation ✕ refresh Please enter your institution. Note: To add your institution or organisation, start typing the name and then select the correct name from the list. Where applicable, the name will appear in both the original language and in English. Do not paste in the name. If the name does not appear in the drop-down list, we will display the information you have entered. ✕ refresh Country/Region * USA UK Canada China France Germany Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Federated States of Micronesia Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro) Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Minor Outlying Islands of the United States Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island North Korea North Macedonia Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Is South Korea South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand The Gambia The Netherlands Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu UK USA Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United States Virgin Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Wallis and Futuna West Bank and Gaza Strip Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Please select your country/region. You must enter a comment. Competing Interests Please disclose any competing interests that might be construed to influence your judgment of the article's or peer review report's validity or importance. Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Please state your competing interests The comment has been saved. An error has occurred. Please try again. Cancel Post var lTitle = "Cataloguing and theorising open research...".replace("'", ''); var linkedInUrl = "http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/15-515/v1" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle) + "&summary=" + encodeURIComponent('Read the article by '); var deliciousUrl = "https://del.icio.us/post?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/15-515/v1&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); var redditUrl = "http://reddit.com/submit?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/15-515/v1" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); linkedInUrl += encodeURIComponent('Adams J et al.'); var offsetTop = /chrome/i.test( navigator.userAgent ) ? 4 : -10; var addthis_config = { ui_offset_top: offsetTop, services_compact : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_expanded : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_custom : [ { name: "LinkedIn", url: linkedInUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_linkedin.svg" }, { name: "Mendeley", url: "http://www.mendeley.com/import/?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/15-515/v1/mendeley", icon:"/img/icon/at_mendeley.svg" }, { name: "Reddit", url: redditUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_reddit.svg" }, ] }; var addthis_share = { url: "https://f1000research.com/articles/15-515", templates : { twitter : "Cataloguing and theorising open research practices in the arts,.... Adams J et al., published by " + "@F1000Research" + ", https://f1000research.com/articles/15-515/v1" } }; if (typeof(addthis) != "undefined"){ addthis.addEventListener('addthis.ready', checkCount); addthis.addEventListener('addthis.menu.share', checkCount); } $(".f1r-shares-twitter").attr("href", "https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=" + addthis_share.templates.twitter); $(".f1r-shares-facebook").attr("href", "https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=" + addthis_share.url); $(".f1r-shares-linkedin").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[0].url); $(".f1r-shares-reddit").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[2].url); $(".f1r-shares-mendelay").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[1].url); function checkCount(){ setTimeout(function(){ $(".addthis_button_expanded").each(function(){ var count = $(this).text(); if (count !== "" && count != "0") $(this).removeClass("is-hidden"); else $(this).addClass("is-hidden"); }); }, 1000); } close How to cite this report {{reportCitation}} Cancel Copy Citation Details $(function(){R.ui.buttonDropdowns('.dropdown-for-downloads');}); $(function(){R.ui.toolbarDropdowns('.toolbar-dropdown-for-downloads');}); $.get("/articles/acj/178353/196728") new F1000.Clipboard(); new F1000.ThesaurusTermsDisplay("articles", "article", "196728"); $(document).ready(function() { $( "#frame1" ).on('load', function() { var mydiv = $(this).contents().find("div"); var h = mydiv.height(); console.log(h) }); var tooltipLivingFigure = jQuery(".interactive-living-figure-label .icon-more-info"), titleLivingFigure = tooltipLivingFigure.attr("title"); tooltipLivingFigure.simpletip({ fixed: true, position: ["-115", "30"], baseClass: 'small-tooltip', content:titleLivingFigure + " " }); tooltipLivingFigure.removeAttr("title"); $("body").on("click", ".cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); var ref = $(this).attr("data-ref"); $(this).closest(".living-figure-list-container").find("#" + ref).fadeIn(200); }); $("body").on("click", ".close-cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); $(this).closest(".popup-window-wrapper").fadeOut(200); }); $(document).on("mouseup", function(e) { var metricsContainer = $(".article-metrics-popover-wrapper"); if (!metricsContainer.is(e.target) && metricsContainer.has(e.target).length === 0) { $(".article-metrics-close-button").click(); } }); var articleId = $('#articleId').val(); if($("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics) { $("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics(articleId, { articleMetricsView: true }); } }); var figshareWidget = $(".new_figshare_widget"); if (figshareWidget.length > 0) { window.figshare.load("f1000", function(Widget) { // Select a tag/tags defined in your page. In this tag we will place the widget. _.map(figshareWidget, function(el){ var widget = new Widget({ articleId: $(el).attr("figshare_articleId") //height:300 // this is the height of the viewer part. [Default: 550] }); widget.initialize(); // initialize the widget widget.mount(el); // mount it in a tag that's on your page // this will save the widget on the global scope for later use from // your JS scripts. This line is optional. //window.widget = widget; }); }); } close Error Close Add Reset F1000.MICROSERVICES.AFFILIATION = ''; $(document).ready(function () { $('.js-affiliations-form').each((index, form) => { new AffiliationForm({ formId: form.id, institutionErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-institution', departmentErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-department', placeSelector: '.js-add-comment-place', stateSelector: '.js-add-comment-state', zipCodeSelector: '.js-add-comment-zipcode', countrySelector: '.js-add-comment-country', countryErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-country', }); }); }); $(document).ready(function () { var reportIds = { "483079": 0, "483087": 0, "483086": 0, "483085": 0, "483084": 0, "483083": 0, "483082": 0, "483081": 0, "483080": 0, "476055": 0, "476054": 0, "476053": 0, "476052": 0, "483088": 0, "476061": 0, "476060": 0, "476059": 0, "476058": 0, "476057": 0, "476056": 11, }; $(".referee-response-container,.js-referee-report").each(function(index, el) { var reportId = $(el).attr("data-reportid"), reportCount = reportIds[reportId] || 0; $(el).find(".comments-count-container,.js-referee-report-views").html(reportCount); }); var uuidInput = $("#article_uuid"), oldUUId = uuidInput.val(), newUUId = "a2598b2e-6cfc-47bf-8baf-db0b924aa183"; uuidInput.val(newUUId); $("a[href*='article_uuid=']").each(function(index, el) { var newHref = $(el).attr("href").replace(oldUUId, newUUId); $(el).attr("href", newHref); }); }); An innovative open access publishing platform offering rapid publication and open peer review, whilst supporting data deposition and sharing. Browse Gateways Collections How it Works Contact For Developers Cookie Notice Privacy Notice RSS Submit Your Research Follow us © 2012-2026 F1000 Research Ltd. ISSN 2046-1402 | Legal | Partner of Research4Life • CrossRef • ORCID • FAIRSharing R.templateTests.simpleTemplate = R.template(' $text $text $text $text $text '); R.templateTests.runTests(); var F1000platform = new F1000.Platform({ name: "f1000research", displayName: "F1000Research", hostName: "f1000research.com", id: "1", editorialEmail: "[email protected]", infoEmail: "[email protected]", usePmcStats: true }); $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-authors, .dropdown-for-about, .dropdown-for-myresearch');}); // $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-referees');}); $(document).ready(function () { if ($(".cookie-warning").is(":visible")) { $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "35px"); $(".devices").addClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); } $(".cookie-warning .close-button").click(function (e) { $(".devices").removeClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "0"); }); $("#tweeter-feed .tweet-message").each(function (i, message) { var self = $(message); self.html(linkify(self.html())); }); $(".partner").on("mouseenter mouseleave", function() { $(this).find(".gray-scale, .colour").toggleClass("is-hidden"); }); }); Sign In Remember me Forgotten your password? Sign In Cancel Email or password not correct. Please try again Please wait... $(function(){ // Note: All the setup needs to run against a name attribute and *not* the id due the clonish // nature of facebox... $("a[id=googleSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("GOOGLE"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=facebookSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("FACEBOOK"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=orcidSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("ORCID"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); }); If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password. The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000. Email address not valid, please try again You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here . You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here . Code not correct, please try again Reset password Cancel Email us for further assistance. Server error, please try again. If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password. If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance. Please wait... Register $(document).ready(function () { signIn.createSignInAsRow($("#sign-in-form-gfb-popup")); $(".target-field").each(function () { var uris = $(this).val().split("/"); if (uris.pop() === "login") { $(this).val(uris.toString().replace(",","/")); } }); });