Open Science (OS) holds the promise to make scientific endeavours more inclusive, participatory, understandable, accessible and re-usable for large audiences. However, the potential for OS practices (publishing Open Access, making data FAIR, etc.) to realise these promises of inclusive and sustainable research and innovation depends heavily on the drivers and barriers to implementation imposed by a diverse range of institutions and individuals. Making research processes open will not per se drive wide re-use or participation unless accompanied by the capacity (in terms of knowledge, skills, technological readiness and motivation) to do so, differences that are further intensified by other factors like geographic location, language abilities, technological skills, educational levels and access to basic equipment. Those in possession of such capacities benefit from an advantage, with the effect that OS’s agenda of inclusivity is put at risk by conditions of “cumulative advantage” whereby individuals and institutions already well-resourced stand to benefit disproportionately from Open Science. This so-called “Matthew effect”, a feedback loop where disadvantage begets further disadvantage, is well-recognized in science. The scoping review will assess the extent to which potential Matthew effects in the wake of, and related to, the transition to Open Science practices have so far been the object of systematic research. In particular, the review will look into work documenting Matthew effects related to Open Access, Open Methodologies, Open Evaluation, Open/FAIR Data, OS in Industry, OS in Policy, and Citizen Science.