Write a comment

Write a short summary of the research’s main findings and how this work has moved the field forward: The paper is clearly and well written, demonstrating a strong and critical engagement with both empirical data and the relevant literature. The research aim and specific objectives are very well framed, and the overall strategy is clearly presented and logically developed. The conceptual framework is robust and thoughtfully articulated, drawing effectively on established literature, recognised frameworks, and open science standards, which provides a strong theoretical and methodological foundation for the study.

The operative and pedagogic approaches are described in a clear and structured manner, allowing the reader to understand how the framework is translated into practice. The findings are a particular strength of the paper: they are rich, well grounded in the data, and offer valuable insights into current practices and challenges. By presenting a comprehensive landscape and needs analysis alongside a well-curated set of best practices, the paper makes a meaningful contribution to the field. It advances current understanding of how open science literacy can be developed through capacity-building initiatives and provides a clear evidence base that can inform future policy, programme design, and pedagogic practice. The discussion is reflective and informative, and it successfully positions the findings in a way that can guide and shape similar capacity-building approaches within the higher education and research sectors.

Major issues

• No major issues, very nicely presented and easy to follow .

Minor issues

• No minor concerns, maybe just make the pie charts more accesible

Competing interests

The author declares that they have no competing interests.

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

The author declares that they did not use generative AI to come up with new ideas for their review.