Volume isn't openness: misaligned assessment and Open Science adoption in Ecuador

Open Science aims to make research more transparent, reusable, and socially valuable, yet adoption may lag where assessment emphasizes journal prestige over openness. This study examines how research-assessment incentives align with Open Science practices in Ecuador and identifies policy levers associated with change. Using a mixed-methods design, we combine a review of national and institutional policies, a bibliometric analysis of Ecuador-affiliated outputs from 2013-2023, and a nationwide researcher survey (n ≈ 418), analyzed with multilevel logistic models, multinomial logit, and negative binomial regressions. Scientific output increased markedly, peaking at 5,070 articles in 2023; 66.7% were open access, predominantly via gold routes. In 2021, 59.3% of citations were self-citations. Despite high familiarity with Open Science (85%), implementation was limited: 22% reported depositing data and 35% publishing via diamond or gold routes. Greater reliance on journal-centric metrics was associated with lower odds of adopting open practices (odds ratio ≈ 0.72), while comprehensive institutional support-repositories with deposit mandates, research-data services, and licensing guidance-was associated with higher odds (odds ratio ≈ 1.65). Sensitivity to article processing charges was associated with shifts toward green and diamond routes. Findings suggest that socio-institutional factors dominate barriers and that aligning rules, services, and responsible assessment may help make openness the default, improving quality, equity, and reuse.