Open instrumentation, like open data, is key to reproducible science. Yet, without incentives it won't thrive.

There is far more to open science than simply not shutting away your work. For example, a significant time investment must be made to collate, curate, explain and document precisely how an experiment can be reproduced or data can be reused. This time investment is currently poorly rewarded in our current model of open science where a bare minimum of openness is mandated, but further work is not recognized. As the open science movement looks beyond open access publications and open data towards ongoing detailed work such as open source software and open source hardware, it needs to consider how to properly encourage the extra work that is needed to properly document these projects. Without detailed documentation, the work cannot be replicated, reused and continually improved. If the work cannot be replicated or reused, is it really even open? This article is part of the Theo Murphy meeting issue 'Open, reproducible hardware for microscopy'.