In the context of open science, where research practices emphasize transparency, collaboration, and data sharing, there are certain new risks in the context of protection of cultural heritage. For example, looting refers to an unauthorized and illegal act of removing artefacts from archaeological sites or other cultural heritage locations with the intent to trade or collect them. Looting poses a significant threat to the preservation of cultural heritage, as it disrupts the historical context of artefacts and diminishes the historical and scientific value of the site. 

Efforts to combat looting involve the implementation of protective measures, such as legal regulations, surveillance, community involvement, and international cooperation. Additionally, responsible data-sharing practices in archaeology aim to balance the open dissemination of knowledge with the need to protect cultural heritage sites from the risks associated with looting. (Frank et al. 2015) Also, the increasing use of LiDAR technology in archaeology which has a transformative potential for mapping archaeological sites poses new ethical challenges regarding data management and access, the role of stakeholders, and public education. LiDAR is a remote sensing technology that utilizes laser light to measure distances and create detailed, three-dimensional maps or models of the Earth's surface. In the LiDAR process, laser pulses are emitted towards the target area, and the time taken for the reflected light to return is measured to generate highly accurate information about the shape, elevation, and characteristics of the scanned area. Some authors emphasize the need for a code of ethics in the growing use of LiDAR in archaeology, proposing improvements in data collection, use, and sharing to ensure the protection of cultural heritage. (Cohen et al., 2020)

In many humanities research projects, scholars engage with human participants to gather information for analysis. This data is often shared openly which may lead to potential risks to participants that primarily revolve around privacy concerns. Open humanities may involve sharing detailed qualitative and quantitative datasets, including personal information, narratives, images, audio recordings etc. Inadequate anonymization can compromise participants' privacy. Moreover, even with anonymization, the risk of re-identification sometimes persists, especially when integrating datasets or employing advanced analytics, potentially revealing identities unintentionally.

Ensuring respect for autonomy and privacy in open science may necessitate novel approaches to participant engagement and consent. For example, informed consent should include information about sharing data in open access and acknowledge the limitations around withdrawing data once shared or controlling its subsequent use, which might be unforeseeable at the time of data collection. Researchers must recognise the complexities of obtaining informed consent in open science, as participants often maintain ongoing interests in how their data is used, including concerns over potential misuse. Participants may not fully grasp the extent of data sharing, and this may lead to a decrease in trust. They might also be unaware of potential secondary uses of their data, raising issues about misuse and loss of control. Concerns might also arise over the direct benefits of data sharing, especially if they perceive the advantages as skewed towards researchers or institutions rather than the broader community or themselves.

ROSiE General Guidelines on Responsible Open Science point to the responsibilities of different stakeholders to ensure research participants' rights:

3.1. Research participants' autonomy, dignity, and other rights should always be respected. In an open science environment, alternative modes of engagement and consent might have to be considered and ethically reflected on by researchers and research ethics committees.
3.2. Informed consent forms and procedures should include at a minimum, information on open science practices, privacy protection, limitations, and risks of reidentification. Researchers should ensure that informed consent processes ensure understanding among the research participants.
3.3. Protecting the privacy and control interests of research participants and their communities is essential in an open data environment. Researchers, research ethics committees, Research Performing Organisations, and policymakers should analyse the risks of reidentification and dual use in different fields and develop governance mechanisms and technical solutions to address these risks. Exploring other approaches to protect privacy, other than anonymization, is increasingly becoming important and is thus recommended.

To mitigate these risks, humanities scholars must prioritize ethical considerations, provide clear and transparent participant information, employ stringent anonymization methods, and comply with data protection and privacy standards. For example, Tamminen et al. suggest guidance for decision-making regarding responsible storing and sharing of qualitative data:

Considerations regarding the storage and sharing of qualitative project materials and data. Source: Tamminen K. et al. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2021.1901138, CC BY 4.0

References

1. Cohen, A., Klassen, S., & Evans, D. (2020). Ethics in archaeological lidar. Journal of Computer Applications in Archaeology, 3(1), 76-91. https://dx.doi.org/10.5334/jcaa.48 
2. Frank, R. D., Kriesberg, A., Yakel, E., & Faniel, I. M. (2015). Looting hoards of gold and poaching spotted owls: Data confidentiality among archaeologists & zoologists. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 52(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.2015.145052010037
3. Tamminen, K. A., Bundon, A., Smith, B., McDonough, M. H., Poucher, Z. A., & Atkinson, M. (2021). Considerations for making informed choices about engaging in open qualitative research. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 13(5), 864-886. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2021.1901138