Open Science Infrastructure for Convergent Research

Authors

  • Noah Long Author

Keywords:

open science, convergence research, reproducibility, provenance, research infrastructure

Abstract

This review examines open-science infrastructure for convergent research. The organizing question is which provenance, metadata, software, governance, and incentive structures support reproducibility across disciplines. Ten related scholarly sources are synthesized through a decision-centered framework spanning problem definition, mechanism, measurement, evaluation, implementation, and governance. The review does not invent experiments, pooled estimates, or unreported quantitative results. It instead evaluates the strength and transferability of the available evidence, with particular attention to mandating openness without accounting for privacy, stewardship, and domain-specific standards. The resulting framework links technical or empirical performance to explicit use conditions and identifies tests that should precede wider adoption in cross-disciplinary research programs.

References

  1. Aguinis, H., Banks, G. C., Rogelberg, S. G., & Cascio, W. F. (2020). Actionable recommendations for narrowing the science-practice gap in open science. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 158, 27-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2020.02.007
  2. Christensen, G., & Miguel, E. (2018). Transparency, Reproducibility, and the Credibility of Economics Research. Journal of Economic Literature, 56(3), 920-980. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.20171350
  3. Elliott, K. C., & Resnik, D. B. (2019). Making Open Science Work for Science and Society. Environmental Health Perspectives, 127(7), 75002. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp4808
  4. Fleischmann, M., Feliciotti, A., & Kerr, W. (2021). Evolution of Urban Patterns: Urban Morphology as an Open Reproducible Data Science. Geographical Analysis, 54(3), 536-558. https://doi.org/10.1111/gean.12302
  5. Kapoor, S., & Narayanan, A. (2023). Leakage and the reproducibility crisis in machine-learning-based science. Patterns, 4(9), 100804. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2023.100804
  6. Laird, A. R. (2021). Large, open datasets for human connectomics research: Considerations for reproducible and responsible data use. NeuroImage, 244, 118579. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2021.118579
  7. Lyon, L. (2016). Transparency: The Emerging Third Dimension of Open Science and Open Data. LIBER Quarterly The Journal of the Association of European Research Libraries, 25(4), 153-171. https://doi.org/10.18352/lq.10113
  8. Marwick, B. (2016). Computational Reproducibility in Archaeological Research: Basic Principles and a Case Study of Their Implementation. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 24(2), 424-450. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-015-9272-9
  9. Ng, J. Y., Wieland, L. S., Lee, M. S., Liu, J. P., Witt, C. M., Moher, D., & Cramer, H. (2024). Open science practices in traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine research: A path to enhanced transparency and collaboration. Integrative Medicine Research, 13(2), 101047. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.imr.2024.101047
  10. Oellermann, M., Jolles, J. W., Ortiz, D., Seabra, R., Wenzel, T., Wilson, H., & Tanner, R. L. (2022). Open Hardware in Science: The Benefits of Open Electronics. Integrative and Comparative Biology, 62(4), 1061-1075. https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/icac043

Downloads

Published

2026-08-08

Issue

Vol. 1 (2026): Archive

Section

Review

License

Copyright (c) 2026 Frontiers in Integrative Science

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.