The global landscape of Open Science implementation is characterised by uneven adoption (Rafols, 2024; UNESCO, 2023). This disparity is observed geographically, with progress more advanced in wealthier countries that possess greater resources, and thematically, as institutions make strategic choices about which aspects of Open Science to prioritise. Academic libraries are formally recognised as key stakeholders in the 2021 UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science (UNESCO, 2021). At a higher level, this talk will aim to answer the following question: what is the reported evidence on how academic libraries within the European research landscape conceptualise and implement Open Science?

To answer this question, we opted to perform a scoping review using the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. This presentation will report findings from such a review, conducted following the Arksey and O’Malley (2005) framework enhanced by JBI methodology (Peters et al., 2020).

The focus on European research landscape complements existing non-European perspectives (Scotti et al., 2025) and global overviews (Liu & Liu, 2023). To date, no scoping review has systematically mapped how academic libraries across this geographic landscape conceptualise and implement Open Science.

The review will employ a data charting framework capturing bibliographic metadata; study characteristics, including geographic coverage across the European countries, within the review’s scope, institutional context, and populations studied; and substantive content spanning Open Science aspects (Open Access, Research Data Management/FAIR, Open Educational Resources, Citizen Science, Open Infrastructure, and others), services offered, librarian roles and competencies, advocacy efforts, enabling factors, and barriers (the full scope of the review is detailed in the registered protocol, available through OSF: https://osf.io/zxs38). The review adopts an expansive definition of Open Science and is therefore expected to capture adjacent library topics, such as APC management and transformative agreements, among others. Key findings, recommendations, and illustrative evidence from included sources will also be extracted, enabling a rich and multi-layered synthesis.

The presentation will bridge this empirical mapping to several conference themes. First, regarding community ownership and governance, the review will document how academic libraries across the European landscape assume distinct roles in governing open scholarly publishing and maintaining shared infrastructure, from institutional repositories to research data management services, revealing varying degrees of institutional ownership over Open Science agendas between EU member states and extended European scope countries. Second, as a presentation of existing communities, the review will chart successful and emerging examples of library-led community building across diverse Open Science areas, including possible directions in diamond open access publishing, repository infrastructure, and capacity development activities, with the geographic breakdown illustrating how communities of practice form differently across resource-varied countries and where gaps persist. Third, concerning shared responsibilities, ethics, and evaluation, the review will identify the drivers, barriers, and enabling conditions that shape how libraries share responsibility for Open Science with researchers, institutions, and policymakers, highlighting collaborative initiatives, advocacy efforts, and the infrastructural foundations that underpin community-driven scholarly communication.

By connecting a systematic evidence base to questions of community governance, practice, and shared responsibility, this presentation aims to inform where further research and policy support are needed to strengthen and diversify library-led Open Science across Europe.

GenAI Statement: Regarding the use of artificial intelligence: generative AI (Anthropic Claude) will be used for editing and language optimisation of project documentation, and to produce code or other analytical support where required; all such uses will be reported transparently in the OSF project directory. ASReview, an open-source software, will be managed according to the literature and methodological planning identified in the registered protocol. All screening, eligibility, and analytical decisions will be made and verified by human reviewers.