How Can Research Funding Organizations Advance Open Science?

James Morris and Bregt Saenen are senior policy officers from Science Europe, an association representing 40 public research-funding and -performing organizations across 29 European countries and co-authors of the recent survey report, Strategic Approaches to and Research Assessment of Open Science. In this interview, conducted via email and edited, they share their insights on the evolving approach to open science by research-funding organizations and assessment systems across Europe. Using key findings from the survey, they consider strategies for advancing open science in Europe and beyond.

Where did the survey originate? Why did you produce this report?

The idea for a survey came out of a joint meeting of the Science Europe Working Groups on Open Science and Research Culture in May 2023. We wanted to better understand the roles played by research-funding and -performing organizations in advancing open science and research assessment reform.

For us, open science is defined as the comprehensive ambition to make research knowledge openly available, accessible, and reusable for everyone. It includes a wide range of policies and research practices—everything from open access to research outputs (publications, data, software, etc.) to open research methods, open evaluation, engagement with society, citizen science, and more.

By providing a descriptive analysis of open science strategies among our members, we hope the report will inform policy discussions, promote mutual learning, and align policies.

Ultimately, it is a tool to advance open science and research assessment reform in Europe and beyond.

Tell us more about these open science strategies. What did you learn about the approaches taken by Science Europe member organizations?

Open science is a strategic priority for nearly all responding member organizations. They’re approaching this work comprehensively, at the regional, national, and international levels.

While open access to research publications and data remains central, we were encouraged to see open science strategies incorporating other elements as well: research infrastructure, open research software, citizen science, and, to a lesser extent, open research methods and evaluation.

Open science is also integrated throughout assessment processes, although we see some distinct approaches, particularly with regards to data collection. Here, the survey reveals that applications often include dedicated criteria or questions about more established aspects of open science (open access to publications, etc.), while more emerging elements of open science (open research methods, etc.) tend to come up in the narrative sections of applications, if at all. The use of specific questions and criteria to collect information on findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability (FAIR) and open research data practices is particularly common, likely as a result of the significant work dedicated to the promotion of research data management plans in recent years.

We were surprised by how little the survey turned up in terms of monitoring mechanisms and evidence-gathering activities beyond established open science elements. Expanding these efforts will be essential as policies become more ambitious.

Are there any promising tools or frameworks under consideration to enhance monitoring and evidence-gathering efforts?

Right now, monitoring and evidence-gathering efforts are largely confined to the organizational and national levels, leaving the international dimension underexplored. Two interesting initiatives working to change this are the Open Science Monitoring Initiative and the Global Research Initiative on Open Science.

What about funding requirements? How are open science elements being incorporated there?

The majority of respondents to our survey plan to review and update their policies and practices in the coming years. They’re influenced by international initiatives like the Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA).

Many responding organizations are adjusting their assessment processes for both funding allocation and career progression to include more elements of open science. This includes everything from open access to research outputs to activities that contribute to more open research processes.

But we also see some key differences in specific aspects of assessment. For example, we see the inclusion of a broader set of open science elements more often in track record assessments of researchers in comparison to funding requirements—a pattern that may reflect fundamental differences in approaches for ex ante versus ex post evaluation.

What major challenges to open science implementation did the survey reveal?

The survey revealed a complex interplay of drivers and challenges. One of the key drivers is the mandate for organizations to shape strategic approaches, often aligning with national and international partners. While national ministries, policies, and international organizations play a significant role, research communities are less frequently identified as primary drivers. This finding raises questions about the extent to which research communities influence or are engaged in open science strategies.

On the challenges side, financial constraints stand out as the most significant hurdle during both the development and implementation phases. Concerns about the potential impact on researchers and their careers are also prominent. Challenges, like monitoring progress, addressing legal complexities, and overcoming resistance or lack of awareness among researchers, become more pronounced during implementation.

Amid these dynamics, responding organizations are revising their approaches, increasingly broadening their strategies to include emerging elements of open science. They are also re-evaluating traditional models of open access publishing, exploring alternatives beyond transformative agreements and article processing charges. These shifts underscore the evolving nature of open science and the need for sustained collaboration and innovation to overcome barriers and harness its full potential.

How, specifically, can research communities be engaged in this work? What is Science Europe doing to support its members in fostering those connections?

Researchers and the research community need to be involved. Policy adaptation in open science and research assessment often requires a change in the behaviors of the research community, and engagement in policy development can improve their uptake. Science Europe regularly organizes consultations and workshops with key stakeholder groups prior to releasing recommendations, and in turn recommends community engagement activities to its member organizations.

How are the open science strategies of Science Europe member organizations shaped by international policies and collaborations?

Our member organizations are adopting robust strategies that align efforts at organizational, regional, national, and international levels, which is vital to creating a cohesive framework. They are inspired and guided by international policies, from the Berlin Declaration’s focus on open access in 2003 to the UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science in 2021.

We will use the survey findings to attempt to influence research and innovation policies in Europe and continue our dialogue with other world regions. This will include promoting the results through key policy platforms, including CoARA, the European Research Area, and the Global Research Council, and during policy events. Our aim will be to shape a more collaborative and inclusive global research ecosystem, reinforcing the importance of international cooperation.

As open science evolves, what new metrics or indicators do you think should be developed to measure success?

The evolution of open science must go hand-in-hand with other research policy initiatives, such as CoARA, and promoting this policy coherence was one of the aims of our study and project. As such, in line with CoARA, the aim is not to develop and implement new metrics or indicators but rather capture research quality and measure success in a more qualitative way. This will involve looking at the content and context of open science activities and qualitatively assessing their impact.

Does the report offer insights applicable to non-European countries aiming to advance open science practices?

Yes, several. First, it underscores the importance of strategic frameworks that operate at regional, national, and international levels.

The emphasis on including established elements alongside emerging practices is also key. Non-European countries can benefit from adopting similar multifaceted strategies tailored to their specific research ecosystems.

Importantly, the survey also points to the potential for mutual learning and alignment between Europe and other regions. For example, comparing the open science values and goals of European research organizations with those of their counterparts worldwide could be revealing. Would there be a similar emphasis on the contribution of open science to research quality and impact, or might other world regions be focused more on open science’s role in promoting equality, diversity, inclusion, and belonging?

Lastly, platforms like the Global Research Council provide opportunities to collaborate and share resources. We decided to share our survey to encourage international dialogue, enabling other countries to refine their strategies and contribute to the global open science movement. This collaborative spirit is essential for advancing an open research culture.

What’s next for Science Europe when it comes to supporting member organizations in this work?

The survey findings will serve as a foundation for ongoing discussions, helping us refine our strategies and strengthen our positions in policy dialogues.

Next, our members will participate in a series of collaborative workshops to analyze the survey findings in greater depth. These workshops will foster mutual learning, allowing members to share best practices, identify challenges, and align on both established priorities and emerging issues. Guided by our Working Groups on Open Science and Research Culture, these discussions will provide actionable insights into effective strategies and innovative approaches.

We are also launching a tender for information that will contextualize the survey results within the broader academic research landscape, which was awarded to the Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS) in the Netherlands and the Know Center in Austria in March 2025. This initiative will help us develop a comprehensive understanding of the systemic changes needed to advance open science.