Open practices are often presented as a simple formula for making science, software and education more transparent and inclusive: share information, invite participation and distribute authority. A new Perspective in Nature Human Behaviour argues that the reality is far more complex. Openness does not automatically produce innovation or broaden participation. Its effects depend on how groups define their goals, organize decision-making, document their structures and maintain the social systems that allow people to contribute.
The article, led by researchers Jessica Meluso, Chris Chambers and Rachel Littauer, examines practices emerging across open science, open-source software, open education and related fields. Although these domains operate with different technologies and professional cultures, they face remarkably similar organizational problems. Who is allowed to participate? Which information is visible? Who has the power to decide? And what rules determine whether a community remains welcoming when disagreements arise?
The authors describe open practices as deliberate actions designed to influence three central dimensions of collective life: transparency, inclusion and decision rights. Transparency concerns who can access information and how easily they can understand it. Inclusion concerns whose perspectives are heard and taken seriously. Decision rights concern who can make choices, set priorities and determine how shared resources are used. Treating openness as a combination of these dimensions, rather than as a single ideal, allows groups to identify where their systems are strong and where hidden barriers remain.
One of the key lessons is that visibility alone is not the same as accountability. Publishing a dataset, releasing source code or placing educational materials online may increase access, but it does not necessarily explain how decisions were made. A project can be technically open while remaining socially opaque if its leadership structure, funding sources or moderation policies are difficult to identify. Documenting power structures can help reveal who controls a project, who has influence without formal authority and which participants may be excluded from important decisions.
This kind of documentation is more than administrative housekeeping. It can function as a technical map of an organization’s governance system. In an open-source project, for example, a contribution guide may explain how code enters the project, while a governance document can clarify who reviews changes, resolves disputes and approves major decisions. In science, similar records can describe authorship expectations, data-access procedures and the responsibilities of principal investigators. By making these pathways visible, groups can reduce uncertainty and give newcomers a clearer route to meaningful participation.
The Perspective also emphasizes the importance of explicitly defining goals before adopting open practices. Transparency, inclusion and shared decision-making can reinforce one another, but they can also conflict. A group may want to release information rapidly while protecting participant privacy. It may seek broad participation while maintaining technical standards that require specialized knowledge. It may distribute authority while still needing people with clearly defined responsibilities during a crisis. Without a shared understanding of the desired outcome, openness can become a vague slogan rather than an operational system.
Codes of conduct are presented as another practical tool for turning values into enforceable norms. Such documents typically describe expected behavior, identify unacceptable conduct and explain how concerns will be handled. Their effectiveness depends on implementation. A code that exists only as a statement on a website may have little impact if reporting channels are unclear or if influential members are exempt from consequences. When supported by transparent procedures, responsible enforcement and regular review, codes of conduct can help establish the social conditions required for participation.
Across the domains examined, the authors identify seven successful practices that can help groups define goals, allocate power, share information and establish norms. The practices are not portrayed as a universal checklist. Their value depends on context, including the scale of the organization, the resources available, the risks faced by participants and the history of the community. A small educational collective may need different tools from a global software project or a large scientific collaboration, even when both are trying to increase inclusion.
The article argues that open communities should learn more systematically from one another. Open science has developed approaches to data sharing and research transparency; open-source software has extensive experience with distributed collaboration and version control; open education has explored access, adaptation and participation in learning. These domains often develop solutions in parallel, however, with limited exchange of lessons. Sharing successful methods could reduce duplication and help organizations adapt proven practices instead of designing governance systems from scratch.
The researchers caution that openness is not self-sustaining. It depends on people who document procedures, answer questions, moderate discussions, maintain platforms and resolve conflicts—often through work that is poorly recognized or unpaid. Digital infrastructure also requires funding, maintenance and technical expertise. If these human and material foundations disappear, an apparently open system can become inaccessible, outdated or dominated by a small group of insiders. The Perspective therefore presents openness not as a one-time technical intervention, but as an ongoing organizational commitment.
The broader message is that ambitious goals such as innovation and broad participation require more than releasing information into public view. Groups must examine how power operates, create reliable routes for contribution, establish expectations for behavior and make decision-making understandable. The seven practices identified in the Perspective offer starting points for that work, but their success will depend on adaptation and continual evaluation. Openness can widen access and improve collaboration, the authors suggest, only when communities treat governance, maintenance and accountability as essential parts of the design.
Subject of Research: Open practices that promote transparency, inclusion and shared decision-making across science, open-source software, open education and other domains.
Article Title: Open practices across science, software, education and other domains
Article References: Meluso, J., Chambers, C., Littauer, R. et al. Open practices across science, software, education and other domains. Nature Human Behaviour (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-026-02526-0
Image Credits: AI Generated
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-026-02526-0
Keywords: Open practices, transparency, inclusion, decision-making, open science, open-source software, open education, governance, participation, research culture
