In business research, there is a growing demand for robust and transparent results that can be directly used by science, politics, companies and institutions. At the same time, the discipline is increasingly facing criticism for its lack of reproducibility. In recent years, there have been increasing indications that fundamental effects reported in various areas of economic research are not reproducible to the extent necessary for a robust knowledge base (Siegfried, 2024; Soliman et al., 2025; Spellman et al., 2017).

At the same time, studies show that Open Science practices are not yet widespread in everyday business research. Legal, organisational and cultural barriers are often cited – such as lack of time, lack of recognition or uncertainty in dealing with open data and methods (Siegfried et al., 2024; Soliman et al., 2025).

In many places, researchers in business research have traditionally focused on publishing completed and methodologically sound work. Uncertainties, interim results and methodological decisions in the research process often remain unpublished and are therefore difficult for third parties to understand (Soliman et al., 2025).

Given the claim of business research to deliver reliable and transparent results with social relevance, a fundamental change of perspective is needed within the professional community – a change that is closely linked to the principles of Open Science. This change aims to make scientific processes more transparent and to systematically disclose preliminary results, assumptions and potential limitations. While disciplines such as psychology already have an established Open Science culture, business research is still in a phase of orientation and gradual adaptation to these principles (Soliman et al., 2025).

The need for such a cultural change is already recognised by various advocates of Open Science within the business research community. They share the conviction that scientific work can only remain credible and relevant if it is transparent, replicable and open (Soliman et al., 2025).

This development has also been embraced by the ZBW – Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, which has embedded Open Science as a central component of its organisational strategy. While the institution engages with economists and business researchers through various professional roles and services, its Open Science Magazine (www.open-science-magazin.de) is coordinated specifically through the communications department. In this context, the Head of Communications maintains close contact with researchers in economics and business research. Against this backdrop, the ZBW identified leading advocates of Open Science within the field of business research and initiated a collaboration aimed at raising the visibility of Open Science within the professional community and integrating it more firmly into scholarly practice.

Specifically, the ZBW initiated a collaboration between four researchers at different career stages in business research and one senior researcher in psychology. The starting point was a panel on Open Science at the annual conference of the Association of University Professors of Business Research (VHB), which was followed by a joint article in the Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research (Soliman et al., 2025).

This collaboration gave rise to the joint idea of initiating a communication project that not only explains Open Science to the business research community in theoretical terms, but also makes it a practical experience – as a shared concern that combines scientific culture and communication practice. In line with Botan and Taylor (2004), the focus was on collaborative action and shared responsibility. The aim was to develop the principles of Open Science together with the target group itself (Lee et al., 2020, Momme et al., 2025; Ravazzani & Hazée, 2022) and communicating them in such a way that they become accessible to researchers, teachers and supervisors in business research and can be integrated into everyday work, gaining greater legitimacy through the peer-to-peer approach. The focus was not solely on conveying information, but on collaboratively developing a communication format that generates interest, offers guidance, and facilitates participation. The result of this co-creation process is a book project, a travel guide entitled Expedition into Open Science Land. The creation of this work is an example of collaborative communication practice in which researchers at different career stages, communication managers and other stakeholders jointly design content and formats. The project forms the practical example for the present case analysis.

At the start of the project, the entire team, consisting of the five scientific authors, the illustrators, the ZBW’s communication designer and the head of the ZBW’s communications department, met for two consecutive virtual sessions. In these workshops, the plenary discussed what kind of book should be developed together. The starting point was the aforementioned article in the Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, which was to serve as the basis for a new, visually and narratively accessible format. The process began with the idea of a fairy tale book, based on the joint essay “A Tale of Open Science: Emergence of a New Normal” (Soliman et al., 2025). However, further discussions quickly revealed that while the fictional and playful approach should be retained, the focus should be more on the character of a practice-oriented guide. This gave rise to the idea of a guidebook, a travel guide.

During the meetings, the group agreed on key parameters for the project: distribution of tasks, scope, ratio of text to illustrations, visual and linguistic tone, and the modular structure of the planned “travel guide”. It was jointly decided that the final product should comprise a German-language print version and additional German and English digital editions. During the discussions, the idea arose to develop a supplementary landing page (see https://expedition-open-science.org) that would provide in-depth information and current guidelines on Open Science and could be updated regularly.

There was no need for an explicit debate on objectives, as all participants shared a common concern: to raise awareness of Open Science among the business research community in a playful yet practical way. The book was intended to provide a low-threshold introduction to the topic, offer concrete guidance, just like a travel guide, and thus contribute to a cultural shift towards greater transparency and openness.

The added value for those involved lay in several aspects of the collaboration itself. For the researchers, working with professional illustrators, designers and communication experts was a novel and inspiring process that broadened their creative perspectives on their specialist subject matter. For the illustrators, the intrinsic motivation and added value lay in participating in an extensive, bilingual book project that opened up the world of science communication to them and involved them as equal contributors whose perspectives and insights from non-scientific practice greatly enriched the work. For the ZBW’s communications department, the project offered the opportunity to develop a peer-to-peer communication product together with representatives of its own target group – an approach that broke new ground in terms of both methodology and content.

The particular added value of the communication product ‘Expedition to Open Science Land’ lies in the fact that its content was developed not for the target group, but together with them. Co-creation with business researchers resulted in a communication product that precisely addresses the specific routines, uncertainties and decision-making situations in everyday business research. The authors knew from their own experience which terms needed to be explained and where brevity was sufficient, which steps in the Open Science process were realistic and where practical obstacles arose.

The tone of the guide – accessible, empathetic and at the same time technically precise – reflects this insider’s perspective. Instead of normative demands, the book contains concrete tips, case studies and points of reference for typical uncertainties: for example, how to handle sensitive data, the limits of pre-registrations or the question of how much openness is possible in a given project. The result is a format that neither glosses over issues nor overwhelms the reader but rather points to realistic ways forward.

The guidebook ‘Expedition into Open Science Land’ enables the ZBW to present Open Science not as an abstract model, but as a practical, jointly developed option for action. Its credibility and connectivity result directly from the co-creation process: the design, language and dramatic structure reflect the perspectives of those for whom the product is intended. In this way, communication itself becomes a place of shared expertise and joint value creation.

After the initial virtual sessions to clarify roles, processes and timeframes, the actual co-creation phase began in the form of a collaborative writing process. The scope, structure and ratio of text to illustrations were defined as joint guidelines at this stage. On this basis, the communications manager created the first complete draft, which served as a ‘co-creation artefact’, a prototype that would enable further joint development at a later stage. The draft was based on classic travel guide categories such as history, geography, climate, travel season and etiquette, as well as chapters on sights, travel tips and checklists, and was designed to serve as a discursive starting point for commentary and supplementary work.

The team of authors, consisting of researchers and early-career researchers in business research and psychology, as well as the head of communications at the ZBW, then worked on a digital collaborative document with open comment functions. The phase was deliberately designed to be low-threshold in order to enable co-creation principles such as openness, equality and iterative development. The co-authors added additional examples, notes and sections and reflected on their own professional experience to determine which content would be relevant to the business research community. This resulted in a multi-layered raw text that integrated numerous perspectives on the practice of Open Science.

The group collectively evaluated the interim result. The text was deemed too detailed because the wealth of content and text types impaired readability and the character of an introductory guide. In addition, inconsistent tones became apparent, a typical result of early co-creation phases in which different perspectives first have to converge. The dramaturgical structure also did not yet meet the goal of providing a low-threshold introduction. The mix of informative and humorous elements was unbalanced, the length of individual chapters was disproportionately large, and the balance between illustrative and textual elements was not yet right.

Based on these findings, the team decided to conduct an editorial sprint in order to structure the co-creation process more clearly and align it synchronously. The sprint was chosen because it enables focused, clearly defined work phases in line with agile co-creation methods. The aim was to jointly compress and prioritise the previously heterogeneous content and bring it into a consistent narrative form. During the sprint, chapter sequences were rearranged, core messages were defined and content redundancies were eliminated. At the same time, a common style framework was created that became binding for further iterations. The condensed time frame of the sprint created a stronger sense of responsibility and belonging, which in turn stabilised the further co-creation process.

Once the text had been finalised, the design work began. The communication designer and the illustrators had already been involved in the project, but not in the development of the text content. Their involvement focused on questions of formal structure, in particular the length and structure of the headings, as well as the subsequent visual translation and supplementation of the material. This early follow-up communication facilitated the transition to the design phase, as key layout requirements were already known. The actual visual development thus began on a stable textual basis and could be carried out without additional content coordination loops.

In parallel with the content and design work, the group of authors developed a distribution plan for the publication and dissemination of the travel guide ‘Expedition Open Science Land’ in printed and digital form. In addition, a cooperation agreement was concluded with the Association of University Lecturers in Business Administration, which, as a central distribution partner, will support further access to the specialist community in Germany.

The communications manager took the lead, creating the first complete draft of the “travel guide”. On this basis, the co-authors enthusiastically added content, comments and new thematic sections such as tips for restaurants, sports activities, hiking routes and insider tips for selected sights. After completing this first draft, the project group evaluated the interim result, finding it too detailed, among other things, and initiated the next stage of editing in the form of an editorial sprint.

Once the text had been finalised, the design work began. As the communication designer and illustrators were continuously involved throughout the entire process, the transition to the visual design went smoothly and without any breaks in content.

The communications manager was responsible for moderation and process support. Her task was to maintain a balance between openness and goal orientation. She facilitated creative development and reflection but kept the content framework stable and ensured that the project remained within the defined target corridor. This role corresponds to what co-creation research describes as boundary spanning and facilitative leadership: communication managers do not primarily act as senders of organisational messages, but as moderators who structure interactions, enable negotiations of meaning and balance tensions between different professional logics (Ind & Coates, 2013; Kent & Taylor, 2002, 2021; Macnamara, 2016; Payne et al., 2008).

Studies on co-creation emphasise that it is precisely this intermediary role that is central to enabling joint value creation and steering active stakeholder participation in an orderly, productive direction (Gemser & Perks, 2015; Ko et al., 2022; Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004a, 2004b; Saarijärvi et al., 2013). The project confirms these findings. The success of the process was largely based on the communication manager’s ability to translate perspectives, synchronise expectations and structure the dialogue in such a way that a consistent joint product could be created. This shift in roles marks a fundamental change in the ZBW’s communication work: communication managers are increasingly acting not as producers of finished content, but as process architects who create spaces for dialogue, bring together perspectives and make shared knowledge visible. This understanding of communication as a moderated negotiation process now opens up new scope for action for the ZBW, as communication is more strongly focused on shaping relationships and shared meaning production.

Academic libraries fulfil central infrastructure tasks in the scientific ecosystem (Borgmann, 2010). They make publications findable, secure research data, develop metadata standards, negotiate licence models, advise on open access strategies, ensure long-term digital archiving and much more. Their contribution lies in stabilising the processes through which scholarship is produced, communicated, and sustained. Yet this stabilising function within the scholarly system is itself often rendered invisible (Cox et al., 2019; Lossau, 2012; Wynne et al., 2023).

However, this is precisely where a communicative paradox lies. As long as this infrastructure functions smoothly, it remains largely invisible in an academic culture where visibility and resonance are key success factors (Borgmann, 2003, 2025; Clarke et al., 2022).

Infrastructures usually only attract attention when there are disruptions. Libraries often only receive media attention when spectacular events such as fires, collapses or other visibly dramatic incidents occur (Clarke et al., 2022). Traditional PR approaches that focus on reach, event orientation or campaign-style visibility are useful, but their impact is limited. For academic libraries, whose tasks are becoming increasingly complex and strategically relevant, the challenge is to generate relevance not primarily through selective attention, but through sustainable relationship management and structural integration into academic processes.

Co-creation opens up an alternative perspective here. Visibility does not arise through self-attribution, but relationally – through joint projects with stakeholders, shared authorship and cooperative problem solving. The library is not perceived solely as a provider of services, but as a partner in scientific transformation processes. Relevance arises through interaction.

Academic libraries operate within a heterogeneous stakeholder structure. Their stakeholders include researchers from different disciplines and career stages, students, funding bodies, university management, cooperation partners, science policy actors and potential new employees. These groups differ in terms of their information needs as well as their institutional logic, expectations, time resources and risk perceptions.

Strategic communication work must systematically take these differences into account. Empathy becomes a core professional competence. It should not be understood as personal sensitivity, but as a methodically sound analytical and reflective skill. Communication managers must address the question of what goals, constraints and experiences guide their stakeholders (Wiggill, 2011). Different perspectives should not be evaluated normatively, but understood as expressions of specific professional and organisational rationalities.

Against this backdrop, communication work becomes a means of shaping spaces of meaning. It is not just a matter of publicising services, but of managing how they are interpreted. Open access can be perceived as a strategic opportunity or as an additional obligation, research data management as a bureaucratic requirement or as a contribution to quality assurance, research training as a time burden or as a gain in efficiency. Communication management influences these interpretative frameworks through narratives, argumentation structures and contextualisation.

Co-creation offers a structured approach to this. Representatives of key target groups can be involved in the development of communicative frameworks – for example, in the design of an information campaign on Open Science, in the development of argumentation guidelines for the use of institutional repositories, or in the design of an annual report for funding bodies. In such processes, it is not the service offering itself that is changed, but rather the communicative perspective on it that is jointly reflected upon. Which aspects require explanation? Which terms are compatible? Which arguments are actually convincing?

Through these processes, motives and concerns are not only anticipated, but also explicitly articulated. Communication is based less on assumptions about target groups and more on jointly developed interpretative frameworks. Co-creation thus becomes an instrument of empathy-based communication strategy that can address cognitive goals (knowledge building), affective goals (trust building) and conative goals (changes in usage and behaviour) in equal measure.