Research Article (preprint): “Charting Open Science Landscapes: Institutional Patterns of Engagement Across U.S. Academic Libraries”

This study investigates how U.S. academic libraries engage with open science practices across institutions with varying levels of research intensity. The aim is to understand institutional-level variations in thematic engagement with open science and to identify potential disparities in capacity and infrastructure.

Methods: Building on a previous systematized review of 3,752 publications from 588 institutions, this analysis shifts focus from the publication level to the institutional level, identifying thematic overlaps in open science engagement. Using the Carnegie Classification framework, we analyze how different types of institutions—including very high research (R1), high research (R2), Doctoral/Professional Universities (DPUs), Master’s Colleges and Universities (MCUs), Baccalaureate Colleges (BCs), and Associate’s Colleges (ACs)—engage with core open science themes. These themes include open access, open data, open educational resources, open reproducible research, and related initiatives. Thematic overlaps and cross-theme integration were also examined to assess the comprehensiveness of institutional engagement.

Results: Very high research institutions (R1s) show the broadest and most integrated engagement across multiple open science themes, frequently demonstrating cross-theme support throughout the research lifecycle. High research institutions (R2s) also exhibit broad thematic engagement but with less extensive cross-theme integration. Institutions with lower research intensity—DPUs, MCUs, BCs, and ACs—tend to focus on fewer themes, particularly open access and open educational resources. The greatest disparities in institutional engagement occur in themes requiring technical expertise and infrastructure, such as open data and open reproducible research, suggesting resource and capacity gaps across institution types.

Conclusion: Our findings are suggestive of structural inequities that limit the capacity of less-resourced institutions to engage comprehensively with open science. We discuss the implications of these findings, emphasizing the need for targeted policies, inclusive funding models, and consortial support to promote equitable participation in open science across the U.S. higher education landscape.