There is increasing recognition of the scope of cultural change needed to realize the European vision for Open Science policy. Key challenges include contemporary modes of recognition and reward that are out of step with principles of open science[1] and identi@ication of numerous disincentives, at the individual level, regarding adoption of new openness practices[2]. These obstacles raise questions about implementation of top-down policy in general, and the European Commission's open science policy in particular. (mock-up) x-xxxx-xxxx-xxxx Contributor Contributions, Open Scholarship •————— •——- •————— •———— •————— •————— Openness Proﬁle (individual) Openness Proﬁle (group) Contributor x-xxxx-xxxx-xxxx Repository, (e.g. Zenodo or RAiD) individual group Research and Innovation – a vision for Europe Open Innovation Open Science Open to the World In what ways is open science policy informed by the science of science? Although evaluation of open science is gaining traction as an important dimension for implementation of open science policy, there is not yet much in the way of empirical analysis. To address this question, we begin with a targeted search in the Web of Science bibliographic database (WoS), which yields three citation networks associated with: open access, open data, and open science[3]. With a combined total of approximately @ive-thousand publication records, published between 1958 and 2018, we then use VOSviewer for analysis and visualization of keyword terms at an aggregate level. Keyword mapping illustrates the relatedness of research topics on the bases of keyword co-occurrence. —> economics of academic publishing —> transparency and accountability —> aﬀordances of digital media and computa8onal resources —> technical integrity of scien8ﬁc processes and outputs —> rapid dissemina8on of medically relevant knowledge In our analysis of the combined keyword datasets, the three queried topics largely retain their individual structures with some interlinking across networks. The keyword map also identi@ies sub-networks that reveal motivating factors associated with the broader openness movement, such as: economics of academic publishing, transparency and accountability, affordances of digital media and computational resources, technical integrity of scienti@ic processes and outputs, and rapid dissemination of medically relevant knowledge. While we identify some common ground between the European notion of open science and the keyword networks, the research topics identi@ied shed light on a more complex relationship between research practice and increased openness. In other words, the European notion of open science appears to draw on particular understandings of the sciences system, characterized by close alignment with economic activity and a clear, albeit linear, view of how science bene;its society. Open science is seen as a natural extension of existing research practices. Missing from this vision is attention to research practices that do not align so easily with economic activity and research @ields that hold a more indirect relationship with society. Within the community of policy makers and advocates of open Science, there is increasing consensus that (a) better recognition and reward of openness practices is a necessary condition for broad adoption of open scholarship, (b) top-down guidance, which is aimed at a wide range of disciplinary practices, will require substantial cultural change to shift the priority of research evaluation toward principles of open scholarship and (c) bottom-up openness initiatives and practices must emerge from local contexts to enable relevant, sustainable change [1, 2]. The Knowledge Exchange working group addressing this issue[4], proposes an Openness Proﬁle for making visible and being recognized for one’s contribu?ons to open scholarship. The aim in this endeavor is to provide complementary, boFom-up resources linked to contemporary Research Informa8on infrastructure. There are