For pharmaceutical companies, the pressure to be more transparent is growing. But it’s not about virtue signaling or chasing citations. It’s about maintaining trust with regulators, healthcare professionals, future recruits, and the public.
Open access publishing is one practical way to support that trust. It gives you control over how and when your science is shared, while also helping to shape the public and professional narrative around your research. Done right, it can strengthen credibility, reduce duplication, and even improve internal efficiency. Done poorly, it’s a waste of time or worse - a compliance risk.
This isn’t about publishing everything. It’s about sharing the right information at the right time and knowing why it matters.
There’s no getting around it, pharma companies are often met with a level of skepticism that other sectors don’t face. Some of it is earned, some of it isn’t, but the perception is there. Being more open with your research won’t fix everything, but it can help.
Publishing in the open isn’t about trying to impress your peers. It’s about giving people a way to see the work for themselves - whether they’re healthcare professionals, regulators, or just informed patients who want to dig into the data.
When that kind of access exists, trust becomes a little easier to build. Not every study needs to be a formal journal publication, but having something concrete, something open, makes a difference. It shows that your company has nothing to hide and that the science can stand on its own.
There’s no question that paywalled research limits reach. If your work is locked up, it doesn’t get read and it doesn’t get used. That’s not just an academic concern. It’s a business one.
Open access (including preprints, white papers, and even structured study summaries) helps make sure your research gets into the hands of people who might actually use it. That could be a regulatory reviewer, a hospital research team, or someone in the broader scientific ecosystem exploring related questions.
Preprints in particular are a useful way to share ideas without waiting for a journal to catch up. They’re not the right tool for everything, especially if you’re dealing with sensitive IP that hasn't been patented yet, but for things like early data, methods, or even failed experiments, they can get your work in front of the right eyes faster, and sometimes that’s what makes the difference.
The bar for transparency keeps getting higher. Regulators want more openness around clinical trials. Funders are pushing for more accountability. And the public, for better or worse, expects companies to be clearer about the science behind the products they use.
Pharma’s made real progress when it comes to publishing clinical trial results. But there’s still hesitation around earlier-stage research - the kind that doesn’t always lead to a product, but still adds value. Sharing some of that work, even in a limited way, can show that your company is invested in the science itself, not just the outcome.
Scientists (especially the ones you want to hire) care about doing meaningful work, and they want that work to be seen. For researchers coming from academia, the idea of publishing and presenting their findings is second nature. Shutting that down in an industry setting can be a dealbreaker.
Being able to publish openly, when appropriate, is a small but powerful signal that a company values its people’s contributions beyond just internal metrics. It shows that the work matters outside the building too.
It’s not about chasing prestige. It’s about making it easier for your team to share their work, build their reputations, and engage with the broader scientific community. That kind of visibility can help with recruiting, collaboration, and retention - not to mention morale.
Industry science has long been accused of bias - that companies only publish positive results, or that they shape evidence behind closed doors. While some of that criticism is valid, most industry scientists know the reality is far more complex.
One way to push back is to publish more openly. That includes not just success stories, but also failed studies and inconclusive results. Publishing negative findings might not drive headlines, but it shows that your company values the scientific process, not just the outcome.
And yes, it’s true that some journals still carry bias against industry-led research. But the publishing landscape is shifting and the growth of preprints and open platforms means you no longer have to wait for journal acceptance to get your science into the world.
“What if competitors use our data?”
Not all data needs to be published. Strategic, phase-appropriate decisions can protect IP while still supporting transparency in other areas. The key is internal coordination, especially with legal and comms teams.
“Won’t it cost too much?”
Some open access journals charge fees, but not all. Many funders now cover publication costs, and preprints are typically free. The bigger cost is time, but that can be mitigated with clear internal guidelines and support.
“Do we have to publish negative or inconclusive results?”
You don’t have to publish everything. But making space for well-documented negative findings can help reduce duplication and boost your company’s scientific credibility. It also shows regulators and partners that you’re serious about learning, not just winning.
Not every piece of internal research needs to be published, and most people working in pharma understand the reasons why. But that doesn’t mean the default should be silence.
If the data is solid, the timing is right, and there’s no conflict with IP, then sharing it makes sense. It helps others avoid repeating the same work, builds trust with partners, and shows that the science behind the product is being taken seriously.
It doesn’t need to be polished for a Nature cover. It just needs to be honest, useful, and accessible. That’s enough to make a difference.
Have our latest blogs, stories, insights and resources straight to your inbox
