Open Practices, Closed Realities? Archaeological Perspectives on Open Research Practices

Historical Development of Open Research Within HSS Versus STEM Disciplines

The concept of open research has evolved significantly over the past few decades, rooted in a broader movement toward open access, open data, and open science. Its contemporary origins can be traced back to the late 20th century when advances in internet technology and shifts in scholarly communication began to challenge traditional models of research dissemination (R. Ma 2024, 3; Sheikh and Richardson 2023, 1). The scientific disciplines, particularly the natural and physical sciences, were among the earliest adopters of open research principles, and these “cultural legacies of European history … continue profoundly to influence the systemic efficacy of the scientific research process” (David 2008, 88). Such fields took part in preprint servers, open access journals, and data repositories to enhance the transparency and reproducibility of research findings (Umbach 2024, 68). In contrast, HSS were slower to adopt open research practices, due in part to fundamental differences in disciplinary methodologies, publishing norms, and concerns over copyright, peer review integrity, and academic prestige (Arthur and Hearn 2021, 829; R. Ma 2024, 4). Unlike the sciences, where journal articles and conference proceedings dominate as primary research outputs, copious HSS disciplines emphasize long-form publications such as monographs and edited volumes. These traditional formats have historically been less compatible with open access models due to copyright restrictions, production costs, and the business models of academic publishers (Ghanbari Baghestan et al. 2019, 6; Shaw et al. 2023, 70).

The advent of the Budapest Open Access Initiative (2002), the Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities (2003), and the Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing (2003) marked key moments in the global push for open research. These declarations sought to establish open access as a standard for scholarly communication, emphasizing the importance of free and unrestricted access to research outputs (L. Ma 2025, 122–23). While these initiatives gained traction in STEM fields (Umbach 2024, 60–62), their impact on HSS remained uneven, as concerns over the sustainability of open access publishing, the credibility of non-traditional publishing outlets, and the reluctance of scholars to deviate from well-established academic publishing traditions persisted (Frankl 2023).

In more recent years, policy changes by major funding bodies have played a crucial role in promoting open research across disciplines. Organizations such as the European Research Council (ERC), the Wellcome Trust, and the National Science Foundation (NSF) have introduced mandates requiring researchers to make their publications and data publicly available (European Research Council, n.d.; National Science Foundation 2015; Wellcome Trust 2025). The implementation of Plan S by cOAlition S (2018), which requires immediate open access for publicly funded research, has made conversations about open research practices even more urgent for researchers. However, within HSS, these mandates have been met with resistance, with scholars citing concerns over the financial burden of article processing charges (APCs), the potential erosion of academic freedom, and the lack of infrastructure to support open data sharing (Berkowitz and Delacour 2022).

Furthermore, the historical reliance on subscription-based publishing models has created disparities in access to research literature. While scholars affiliated with well-funded institutions enjoy access to a vast array of academic resources, independent researchers, practitioners, and scholars from lower-income regions often face significant barriers to obtaining the same materials (Arthur and Hearn 2021, 832). This recognition has fueled discussions of alternative publishing models, including diamond open access, which eliminates APCs for authors, and institutional repositories, which allow scholars to self-archive their work (Bergstrom et al. 2024).

Despite these developments, the transition to open research in HSS remains a work in progress. Key challenges include the need for greater awareness and training about open research practices, the development of disciplinary guidelines for data sharing and transparency, and the establishment of sustainable funding models for open access publishing. As discussions around open research continue to evolve, it is essential for HSS scholars to actively engage with these debates, ensuring that open research models are adapted to the unique needs of their disciplines.

Barriers to Open Research

While the principles of open research have gained traction in recent years, several persistent barriers have hindered the widespread adoption of open research practices across HSS. These challenges stem from barriers that are solvable, such as financial constraints and technical issues, as well as those that are unresolvable, such as ethical concerns related to data management and access. Understanding these barriers and their differences is crucial for developing strategies that facilitate a more inclusive and sustainable open research culture.

The high costs associated with open access publishing represent a major barrier for researchers in HSS. Unlike in many STEM disciplines, where research projects receive substantial funding from grants that can be used to cover open access APCs, HSS researchers frequently work with limited financial resources (Ojennus 2017). Numerous scholars, particularly those at smaller institutions, independent researchers, and researchers based in lower-income countries, struggle to afford the APCs required by certain open access journals (Newton 2020, 537).

Transformative agreements have been introduced as a potential solution to offset these costs. These agreements require institutions to pay subscription fees that both cover access to paywalled content and allow affiliated researchers to publish open access in specific journals. However, transformative agreements also incur significant financial costs for universities and do not fully address the underlying inequities in the academic publishing system (Ma et al. 2023, 2). Moreover, there are researchers who remain unaware of the financial implications of these agreements, the high profit margins of commercial publishers, and the existence of alternative publishing models such as diamond open access, which removes both reader and author fees (Bobtcheff et al. 2023).

The economic structure of academic publishing exacerbates these financial challenges. Several major academic publishers operate under profit-driven models that prioritize the generation of revenue over knowledge dissemination (Trueblood et al. 2025). As a result, open access publishing in traditional, high-prestige journals remains financially inaccessible for a great deal of researchers, particularly those who are precariously employed or who are at institutions with limited funding for APCs.

Beyond financial and institutional barriers, technical and ethical challenges also play a significant role in limiting open research practices. One key issue is the management of sensitive data, particularly in disciplines such as anthropology and archaeology, where research often involves culturally significant artifacts, human remains, or confidential historical records. Openly sharing such data raises complex ethical questions about ownership, consent, and the potential for misuse or misinterpretation (Berkowitz and Delacour 2022, 9).

For example, archaeological research involving ancient DNA or human remains must navigate ethical guidelines regarding the treatment of culturally sensitive materials, particularly when working with Indigenous or historically marginalized communities (Wick et al. 2024). Researchers must balance the principles of openness with the need for responsible data stewardship, ensuring that data sharing does not infringe on the rights, traditions, or interests of the communities involved (General Data Protection Regulation 2016; Ulguim 2018, 211–13). In some cases, it has been suggested that measures, such as “governance, oversight and audit mechanisms,” be employed in relation to the design of datasets in order to uphold ethical standards while still promoting research transparency (Rossi and Lenzini 2020, 20).

Data management infrastructure also presents technical challenges for open research in HSS. Many researchers lack training in best practices for data organization, preservation, and sharing. Unlike the sciences, where standardized repositories and metadata frameworks are widely used, HSS disciplines often rely on ad hoc or institution-specific data storage solutions that lack long-term sustainability (Barats et al. 2020; British Academy 2005). The absence of discipline-specific, agreed-upon guidelines for open data management makes it difficult for researchers to navigate the complexities of depositing and sharing their research outputs effectively.

The Case of Archaeology as an Interdisciplinary Field

Archaeology is unique in its interdisciplinarity as it integrates approaches from across the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences, making it an ideal case study for exploring open research within HSS. Archaeology draws from and contributes to multiple disciplines, including history, anthropology, art history, geography, and even physics and chemistry (Kerr 2020, 1340). Methods such as stratigraphic excavation, typological analysis, and material culture studies often align archaeology with the humanities, while the use of techniques such as GIS, isotopic analysis, archaeogenetics, and radiocarbon dating frequently connect it with the sciences. Indeed, the interdisciplinary nature of archaeology has engendered a series of recurring and lively debates within the field, with practitioners variously arguing for alignments to the humanities, sciences, and social sciences (Hawkes 1968; Isaac 1971; Marwick 2025; Sørensen 2017; Stojanowski and Duncan 2015). As a result, the archaeological research environment requires collaboration across diverse fields, each with its own norms and expectations regarding data sharing, publication formats, and transparency, thus negating a discipline level of standardization.

Data complexity and diversity are two of the primary challenges of implementing open research within archaeology. Archaeological research can produce any number of various data types, such as:

These data types each have distinct requirements for storage, sharing, and interpretation, thus creation and widespread adoption of set standards have not occurred (Faniel et al. 2013). Unlike controlled laboratory experiments, archaeological data collection is not reproducible. Once a site is excavated, its original context is destroyed. The reliance on excavation as a key method for obtaining archaeological data thus limits the applicability of traditional scientific open data principles, such as reproducibility and replicability, within this discipline (but see Lake 2012; Marwick et al. 2017; Marwick and Pilaar Birch 2018). As a consequence, archaeology is a particularly challenging field to address when attempting to standardize open research practices.

Archaeology as a discipline also presents distinctive obstacles when it comes to the ethical considerations that animate best practices in open data sharing. These obstacles include, but are not limited to, Indigenous and descendant community concerns, research involving human remains and aDNA, and commercial archaeology and data ownership. In regard to Indigenous and local community concerns, archaeological research often involves cultural heritage sites with deep spiritual, social, and historical significance to living communities. Openly sharing data without appropriate permissions or community involvement has the potential to lead to ethical violations and harm relationships between researchers and descendant communities (Fox 2020; Hudson et al. 2020; Reardon and TallBear 2012). This potential for harm is particularly pronounced where contemporary and historical issues of land ownership, cultural appropriation, and oppression are present (Fox 2020; Kansa 2012; Kansa et al. 2025; Wick et al. 2024). Research on human remains, including aDNA analysis, raises crucial questions about consent, ancestry, and repatriation. It is not uncommon for certain groups or ethical guidelines to restrict or inhibit the publication and distribution of data collected from human remains (Mulligan et al. 2022, 28; Ulguim 2018, 198–99).

Commercial archaeology and its relationship to data ownership also presents unique discipline-specific issues. Many excavations occur as a result of commercial businesses being contracted by land developers who are complying with heritage protection legislation. In contract archaeology, reports and datasets can often be restricted because of proprietary concerns, which limits access to potentially informative research findings (Kansa 2012, 508). The intersection between ethical responsibilities to descendant communities, a disciplinary mandate to protect and preserve heritage, and the legal liabilities of the commercial sector mean that open research in archaeology requires tailored policies that balance openness with ethical and legal responsibilities. It is for these reasons that archaeology makes a compelling inter-subdisciplinary case study for analyzing open research practices and the potential implications it has across HSS.

Perceptions of Open Research

Participants expressed a positive attitude toward open research, collectively agreeing that in principle openness enhances both knowledge dissemination and academic collaboration. “Transparency” was recognized as a key term associated with open research, particularly when participants were asked about the meaning of, or ramifications of, openness. For example, one participant explained that “it means transparency. It’s about promoting accessibility, […] It’s about making data available for democratizing knowledge” (Interview 2, Postdoc). This is reflective of all interviewees’ perceptions of open research as both publications and data are mentioned. These are the two components of open research that participants were most interested in, most vocal about, and most knowledgeable of. As a result, the rest of the study’s findings are representative of this fact.

Interviewees’ positive attitude toward the principles of open research were spoken about in terms of how its benefits aided both research and researchers. This was reflected in all career stages. PhD students spoke of benefits in relation to improving their own personal research: “I know it’s made my research a lot richer and, like, more complex […] the fact that I can compare my data with other data and the fact that I’m able to access so many different articles to support the context for my research” (Interview 18, PhD Student). Postdocs made reference to expanding the breadth of archaeological research as a whole, not just their own. Faculty members varied the most in their perception of a positive impact on areas outside of their research, such as public engagement and outreach. While they spoke of these benefits in conceptual terms, they actively acknowledged how their own research benefits as a result: “obviously on a, you know, kind of an individual, personal, selfish level. Having things open access means that more people read it, so more people know about it. So it’s better in terms of your career and your CV” (Interview 12, Faculty).

Most participants acknowledged what they referred to as their “privileged access” to academic publications due to institutional affiliations. They recognized that independent researchers and those working in commercial archaeology often lack access to essential research materials. Indeed, some researchers noted that they had been asked to access articles on behalf of other archaeologists who lacked institutional access to these publications (Interview 20, PhD Student). At the same time, our participants noted that they themselves faced difficulties accessing reports produced by non-academic archaeologists, illustrating a gap in knowledge-sharing across different sectors of the discipline: “If you really need a resource, you either end up not citing the kind of work that you should be citing, and then you get criticized by the reviewers, or you end up doing things in a different way. So in that sense, I think all research should be open, to be honest. If we’re talking about really trying to share knowledge, I think that’s where we should be” (Interview 5, PhD Student). Researchers themselves are conceptually aware of how disparities in access to research negatively impact all members of the archaeological research community, not only academics. However, while this uneven ability to access materials highlights ongoing disparities in the availability of research outputs, it can also be understood as how researchers are supportive of open access/research in principle.

Participants agreed with the ethos and core values of open research. When asked to expand on these definitions, however, participants often began to discuss the gap between the ideals of open research and what they considered to be the reality of open research practices. This gap is explained by researchers’ perceptions that open research was positioned as complex and, at times, a burdensome exercise. As one participant explicitly stated, “we have come to a point where we’re seeing the negative results of something that initially had positive ideals” (Interview 5, PhD Student). Others made a more implicit critique, noting, “I think sometimes there can be a cart before the horse kind of thing” (Interview 8, Faculty). Archaeologists noted that the reality of practically engaging in open research methods often entailed additional administrative efforts and compliance with institutional or funder policies, which was problematic in terms of both labor and financial support: “there’s often not the kind of funding or time for people to do it to that degree. And then it falls on the lowest paid and the most precarious scholars to undertake the work” (Interview 6, Postdoc). Researchers consistently highlighted the inequities implicated in open research mandates. They were also skeptical about the feasibility of full transparency within archaeological research, citing concerns over intellectual property, data sensitivity, and the practical challenges of making all research outputs openly available. One researcher provided a particularly eloquent summary, stating that “there is a sensitivity to having their material accessible through means that they control” (Interview 4, Faculty).

The Influence of Funding Mandates

Funding mandates were one of the most significant factors shaping researchers’ engagement with open research. While participants generally agreed that openness is beneficial, their adoption of open research practices was primarily driven by external policies rather than personal or disciplinary motivations. The influence of funding mandates and bodies played such a pivotal role in defining researchers’ relationships to open research practices that respondents noted that such institutions were the only available source of information and guidance. As one participant expressed, “some people find it more important than others, and maybe there’s also some that find it a burden, saying, ‘Oh, it’s one of those tick-the-boxes exercises, one of the things that we have to do. But I just want to do research.’ Basically, you know that they’re more focused on that aspect of it rather than the importance for the wider world” (Interview 7, Postdoc).

Although researchers expressed a desire for broader access to research outputs—including monographs, textbooks, and data—few participants actively sought out open research avenues independently of funding requirements. The capacity of funding mandates to dictate open research practices was not always viewed in a positive light, with one researcher describing these dynamics as “hamstringing research,” believing that the effect of such mandates was “an absolute, unmitigated disaster” (Interview 9, Faculty).

Additionally, institutional requirements and funding mandates were often described as coming into conflict with one another, with requirements lacking standardized, cohesive definitions or aims. Researchers stated that the lack of definitive terminology resulted in confusion when it came to formatting and finalizing their research outputs in order to meet mandates:

[A]s part of the grant agreement there is the requirement to maintain the data in perpetuity. Which is an interesting thing, because I don’t know if the funder really thought about what that meant, and [researcher’s institution] certainly has two definitions of perpetuity. So the library sees perpetuity as 10 years and then other parts of the university see it as long as the university exists. And then our contracts manager actually pointed out that the assumption made in the grant agreement letter, so our legal counsel, said, actually, the assumption is that the internet will exist in its existing form in perpetuity. So you could argue that actually, the responsibility is just as long as the internet exists in its current form. (Interview 29, Postdoc)

These types of differences in terminology and definitions cause confusion for researchers when trying to meet funding requirements alongside those of their institutions. This confusion is a cause for concern if researchers believe funding mandates are the only source of information and guidance on open research practices, as outlined above.

In summary, researchers’ knowledge of open research practices was steered by what was required to meet funding mandates, which in turn is affected by institutional and funding mandates coming into conflict with each other. Despite a broad understanding of open research that referred to ideals of “transparency” and “democratizing knowledge,” these ideals were not leveraged or referred to in descriptions of archaeologists’ actual experiences implementing open research. The strong links between open research practices, funding mandates, and confusion revealed by this analysis also help to explain the next key finding of this study: archaeologists’ limited understanding of the costs behind taking part in open access publishing.

Limited Understanding of Open Access Costs

Most participants expressed appreciation for transformative agreements (often referred to as “library agreements”) as enabling broader access to, and publication of, research. Respondents, however, also did not seem to be fully aware of the actual costs of these agreements or the potentially exploitative practices of some commercial academic publishers. Transformative agreements were often spoken of positively and framed as eliminating the burden of APCs entirely. In effect, respondents appeared to treat transformative agreements as synonymous with or interchangeable with diamond open access models. As one researcher stated, “So sometimes you can get in if you’re within good timing with the library list, and you can get in, when [it’s] the free ones” (Interview 14, Faculty). Another responded, “I think the move to support the University being in agreements where you get open access already without having to [pay]. You know, it’s just a no brainer” (Interview 10, Faculty).

Participants refer to being accepted and having their open access publication(s) paid for through transformative agreements while funds are still available, as “getting in,” or “without having to [pay].” The implication of this is that they believe this process to be “free” and without allocation of payment in any form. Responses such as these demonstrated a limited understanding of how transformative agreements work, especially where costs and responsibility for those costs were concerned. However, the few participants who referred to the business models of commercial academic publishers made statements that cast processing charges in a negative light: “I almost, to a certain extent, don’t see much of a distinction between their pay to publish model and that of the predatory journal” (Interview 11, Faculty); and “On the flip side it costs. So there’s that issue, it’s not good that we’ve come up with a model that’s prohibitively expensive for people that want open access, but when you can get open access, it’s supporting a publishing model that is somewhat predatory, if not openly predatory in some cases” (Interview 6, Postdoc). Researchers were explicit in their comparison of the processing charges associated with certain types of open access publications and those of predatory journals, characterizing them as inherently exploitative. Furthermore, participants evinced little knowledge of alternative publishing models such as diamond open access, which eliminates author-facing fees (Normand 2018, 2). They either confused such publishing models with transformative agreements or were unaware of the existence of such options.

Lack of Formal Training in Data Management

One of the most consistent results throughout the study was the absence of formal training in data creation and management for archaeologists. Participants reported that most available training came from workshops offered by their institutions’ libraries, general research support units, or their supervisors and principal investigators (PIs), rather than discipline-specific programs. The lack of structured training in open research practices means that researchers often relied on self-learning or informal peer guidance to navigate data sharing protocols. The absence of overarching standards for formal guidance and training means that researchers structured their work in ways that do not align with open research practices, resulting in an increased workload if they were required to restructure to meet funding mandates. Participants recognized the paucity of standardized methods for collecting data and creating metadata as an issue; it was repeatedly mentioned that “it’s different every time” (Interview 21, PhD Student), noting that data collection became inconsistent as a result of everyone creating their own approach. Archaeologists opined that the interoperability of data being used in research was affected poorly by having no set disciplinary standards for collection, documentation, and publication. This assertion was reinforced with a number of examples of strategies for interacting with previously published datasets, including repositories, databases, supplementary information attached to articles, and “data made available upon request.”

A lack of standardization and formal training found researchers trying to navigate data and metadata production themselves with little guidance. As a result, participants expressed a great deal of interest in discipline-specific training programs and standardized practices to better equip them with the necessary skills to manage and share data effectively. As one respondent noted, “I didn’t put my PhD [data] research in any sort of open source form. I just put a thesis out and that was because […] I didn’t think it was worth [publication], I didn’t think it was clean enough. I didn’t feel like it was something I wanted out there, so maybe if I had that training at the beginning […] I would have been a bit more thorough with it” (Interview 21, PhD Student). Another said, “I would prefer to see more thought given to a standard level of reporting rather than forcing PIs to upload it as a matter of course” (Interview 8, Faculty).

These findings suggest that while there is broad support for open research principles among archaeologists, significant gaps in knowledge, training, and infrastructure continue to hinder its full implementation within the discipline. Addressing these gaps will require more targeted educational initiatives, increased transparency about publishing costs, and a more inclusive approach to data sharing across different sectors of archaeology.