Dario Germani

The chapter highlights the importance of principles guiding open science in the specific case of data production for social sciences through the use of probabilistic and non-probabilistic panels. It offers guidance for researchers, institutions, and policymakers to conduct research that shares knowledge with communities in ways that are morally sound and socially responsible. By adhering to core values, practitioners of open science can build trust, foster collaboration, and advance knowledge transparently, inclusively, and with accountability. This is crucial across all research contexts, especially in projects with significant collective value and social impact. Therefore, ethical review processes, appropriate handling of research data, and compliance with legal frameworks and professional standards play a central role in planning and implementing initiatives of broad scientific, social, and political relevance. The chapter examines these aspects through a comparative analysis of several European longitudinal studies, namely the LISS Panel (Netherlands), the UK Household Longitudinal Study (UKHLS), and the German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP), as well as through the Italian experience of the FOSSR project (Fostering Open Science in Social Science Research), which integrates considerations of responsibility and governance into the design of large-scale data infrastructures.

This chapter discusses the methodological innovations and challenges related to surveying child well-being in Italy, and the role of the GUIDE (Growing Up in Digital Europe) project. The GUIDE research infrastructure aims to develop a comparative longitudinal survey on child well-being across European countries. The proposed survey would follow two cohorts of children, one from ages 8 to 24, and one between ages 1 and 24. The data collected through this longitudinal survey will provide a holistic evaluation of child well-being and constitute an evidence base for public policies at different territorial levels in participating countries, as well as creating a unique dataset for comparative policy analysis. Building on pilots conducted in five countries in 2023, the Italian GUIDE team at the University of Bologna pre-tested the implementation of the survey in Italy. In collaboration with the Italian National Research Council (CNR-IRPPS), the team also produced a design for the pilot in Italy. This design will facilitate the evaluation of different survey modes, with particular interest in the option for a “push to web” via self-completion Computer Assisted Web Interviews (CAWI). The pilot will also permit assessment of the robustness of the survey instrument to regional heterogeneity, as data will be collected in northern (Lombardy and Emilia-Romagna) and southern (Campania and Apulia) regions; specific technical elements of the sampling strategy are discussed. After outlining the state-of-the-art regarding data on child well-being in Italy, the chapter analyses the work conducted so far to establish GUIDE in Italy, and presents pathways to the full-scale launch of the GUIDE survey in 2027 in Italy and Europe.

Online Probability Panels (OPPs) have emerged as essential research infrastructures for social sciences, offering robust tools for longitudinal analysis and evidence-based policy-making. However, the growing role of the Open Science movement demands systematic evaluation of their compliance. This study compares major European OPPs—including LISS, GESIS, the GIP, ELIPSS, and the Swedish and Norwegian Citizen Panels—focusing on their practices of openness, recruitment, sampling, and maintenance. Through a qualitative analysis of public documentation and methodological reports, the study examines how their diverse approaches influence data accessibility, inclusivity, and long-term usability. Our findings highlight substantial variability across panels, reflecting the interplay between national contexts, governance models, technological infrastructures, and methodological choices related to recruitment, sampling, and panel maintenance. Some panels demonstrate stronger alignment with Open Science values—promoting transparency, interoperability, and inclusive engagement—while others operate within more constrained frameworks shaped by institutional or structural limitations. This comparative analysis contributes to the understanding of OPPs as evolving knowledge infrastructures and provides a reference framework for future panel development. In doing so, it offers valuable insights for enhancing the role of OPPs in advancing open and socially engaged research practices.