The last twenty years of open science advocacy and the more recent proliferation of programs and funding have shown that open science has become a veritable mantra. In this communication we deliberately adopt a perspective of the sociology of work and of professions: rather than examining discourses on openness, we focus on the missions, experiences and profiles, as well as the practices, of professionals whose daily work is devoted to ‘opening up’ science. We propose to analyse the opening up of science as a vector of contemporary scientific credibility, implemented by professional communities which are invisible in their daily environment. Drawing on the cases of two groups studied in our respective theses, the one responsible for opening up their institution to society, and the other responsible for opening up publication, our proposal follows the hypothesis of the emergence of a professional category. In total, our empirical material consists of interviews (n=41), and analyses of institutional archives. The data covers a broad period of institutional intervention in France and Sweden (from the early 2000s to late in 2020).

The exercise of comparing the work of ‘opening up’ science involved two groups of professionals of different sizes and with different professional and institutional histories. The comparison has informed us about common competencies and work characteristics (professional profiles, previous professional experience, missions, extensive socialisation spaces, etc). It also highlights differences between the two groups, notably in the extensive use of quantification by open access publishing professionals. “Qualculatory” logics and methods are clearly vectors of credibility for the group of Open Access publishing professionals, but at the time of writing we do not observe the extension of qualculatory, or even commercial, logics in openness to society.

At the time of the survey, the work of opening up remained invisible in institutions. This invisibility allowed both professional groups to develop quietly and to benefit from a considerable autonomy of action within the institutions, therefore be a resource for the work of opening up. While this invisibility was at the service of their profession, in the medium term it nevertheless calls into question the means implemented to ensure the long-term survival of the opening up. Faced with the effects of professionalisation and managerialisation (growing workforce, younger and less experienced professionnals), openness professionals also run the risk of losing the motivation and meaning of their actions, especially when it comes to the ‘sewing’ work that is essential for linking up with the communities they serve. The work of opening up lies somewhere between management, critical analysis, and (measuring) performance, whether in terms of opening up the publication or opening up to society.