UCY Hosted the Final Mutual Learning Session on Open Science and Researcher Assessment

• April 11, 2025

Nicosia, Cyprus – The University of Cyprus (UCY), in partnership with YERUN (Young European Research Universities Network) and the OPUS Consortium, hosted the final Mutual Learning session of the OPUS project. This gathering brought together thought leaders, researchers, practitioners, and policy influencers to reflect on pilot implementations, assess progress, and co-design the way forward.

The University of Cyprus played a central role in yesterday’s OPUS Mutual Learning workshop, where Panagiotis Moiras, Director of the Research and Innovation Support Service (RISS), offered a compelling overview of the university’s contributions to the advancement of open science—both within the institution and on a national scale.

In his address, Mr Moiras reflected on the university’s rapid development, despite its relatively young age, highlighting its deepening collaborations and growing impact on the wider Cypriot research community. A key milestone, he noted, came in 2008 when the University of Cyprus became the first institution in the country to sign the Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities. Since then, the university has been a driving force in promoting open science principles at both institutional and national levels.

Two landmark achievements stood out in the presentation. First, the university’s instrumental role in shaping national policy led to the approval of Cyprus’s open science frameworks in 2016 and again in 2022. These were the result of extensive collaboration with key government bodies, including the Deputy Ministry of Research, Innovation and Digital Policy. Secondly, Mr Moiras pointed to the university library’s unique position as the sole national Open Access Desk for OpenAIRE in Cyprus. Over the years, the library has evolved into a trusted knowledge hub, regularly engaging researchers through webinars, conferences, and information days.

As part of its practical efforts, the University of Cyprus has implemented policies aligned with European and global standards, established vital research infrastructure such as the Gnosis repository, and actively contributed to initiatives like Zenodo and CoARA. These actions underscore the university’s commitment to embedding open science into its research culture.

“The journey of open science in Cyprus started from our university,” he stated proudly. He acknowledged that while significant progress had been made, the path ahead remains long and complex, requiring a shift in research culture built over decades. Nonetheless, he affirmed the university’s dedication to continuing this transformation—for the benefit of a more transparent, inclusive, and equitable research landscape.

The day began with a keynote address by Vasiliki (Sylvia) V. Koukounidou, Coordinator of UCY’s Digitisation and Archives Office, who narrated UCY’s evolving journey with Open Science. Koukounidou recounted milestones in embedding openness into institutional processes—from policy design to cultural transformation, and highlighted the role of internal networks, such as the establishment of open science champions and the active engagement of early-career researchers, while acknowledging the persistent challenges, particularly in aligning personal motivations with institutional goals.

This was followed by focused pilot presentations, each offering ten-minute insights into individual implementation experiences, rounded off by a dynamic twenty-minute collective Q&A session.

University Nova Lisbon, Portugal, OPUS Pilot Implementation, and Next Activities

NOVA University of Lisbon opened with an overview of their adaptive approach, stressing the importance of institutional flexibility and staff coordination.

NOVA University Lisbon has made significant strides in its efforts to institutionalise open science practices as part of its involvement in the OPUS project. The initiative, which aligns with national policies and aims to foster transparency and responsible research, has been a cornerstone of the university’s strategy to promote open access publications, data sharing, and software dissemination.

Institutional Goals and Strategic Framework
When embarking on this project, NOVA set out to develop dedicated policies that support open science. Key objectives included creating a comprehensive open science strategy for the institution and fostering a culture of transparency in research. The pilot phase focused on two main categories: research and valorisation. Within these areas, key efforts included data management, software development, publication production, and citizen engagement activities. These were further supported by complementary initiatives such as policy development, resource allocation, repository creation, awareness-raising sessions, and training workshops.

Collaboration with Research Centres

Nova partnered with two research centres to advance its goals. One centre specialises in disease and life sciences, while the other focuses on software development and digital infrastructure. This collaboration has been pivotal in addressing challenges related to policy interventions and resource allocation.

Policy Development and Implementation
NOVA has adopted a proactive approach by introducing an internal Open Science Guide, designed to serve as a foundational framework for researchers across all disciplines. The guide outlines best practices in open access publishing, data management, software sharing, and citizen science. It is fully aligned with international standards, including the UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science and the FAIR principles, ensuring consistency and global relevance.

Progress in Key Areas
Open Access Publications

Monitoring commenced in Month 9 of the project (January 2024), and findings showed that all publications produced by the OPUS cohort during the first phase of implementation were made openly accessible

Data Sharing

Although open-source code was not initially available, NOVA supported OPUS cohort in making their code publicly accessible via platforms such as GitHub and Zenodo.

Software Development

Although the number of shared datasets from the OPUS cohort has not increased significantly, due to the timing of research cycles and the specific scope of their work, NOVA remains confident in its ability to meet targets in this area.

Citizen Engagement

While this aspect of the initiative is still in its early stages, groundwork has been laid to define its direction. More tangible outcomes are anticipated by Month 18 of the project.

Researcher Involvement and Training

Approximately 13 early-career researchers have participated in cohort activities focused on Open Science topics. Initiatives such as meetings, incentives and policy development have been implemented across five core areas: policy creation, resource allocation, repository use, awareness-raising efforts, and training workshops.

Challenges and Future Directions
Nova acknowledges that fostering a culture of data sharing and open-source development remains challenging. However, feedback from researchers indicates growing awareness of the benefits of open science practices. The university plans to conduct additional workshops and integrate further measures once a national policy is established.

By advancing these practices within its institution and contributing to broader goals under the OPUS project framework, Nova University Lisbon is playing a crucial role in shaping the future of open science for both its academic community and society at large.

University of Cyprus followed, emphasising the value of community-building, transparency, and reproducibility, while also pointing to the difficulties of making software tools user-ready.

 University of Rijeka, OPUS Pilot Implementation, and Next Activities

University of Rijeka reported on the hurdles of aligning national and institutional policies, while highlighting the crucial role of early career researchers. The University of Rijeka in Croatia has adopted a distinctive approach to its participation in the OPUS project, focusing on targeted interventions aligned with strategic objectives for advancing open science practices. Unlike other institutions involved in the initiative, Rijeka concentrated its efforts on a specific cohort of 17 early-career researchers from the Faculty of Law. These researchers were defined as individuals who either had not yet obtained a PhD or had completed their doctorate within the last five years.

Expanding Engagement Beyond the Cohort

While the pilot activities were initially tailored for this cohort, their relevance quickly extended to a broader audience. Consequently, sessions were opened to all interested parties while maintaining personalised support for the cohort to address their specific needs. This dual approach ensured inclusivity while preserving the focused nature of the interventions.

Collaborative Efforts and Institutional Support

The success of Rijeka’s pilot was underpinned by extensive collaboration across university departments. Although leadership figures such as Sasha and colleagues were prominent in meetings, a larger team contributed behind the scenes. The University Library played a pivotal role through its Centre for Open Science and Scientific Information Management, which facilitated many activities. Additionally, the newly established Science Outreach Centre provided timely support during its formative stages, enabling joint piloting of initiatives. A dedicated librarian at the Faculty of Law further enhanced the pilot’s implementation by serving as a key contact point and resource.

Key Achievements and Activities

Since the last mutual learning exercise in Bucharest (Month 9), several milestones have been reached:

• Policy Revision: The university’s open science policy was revised and adopted earlier this year.
• Training Sessions: Tailored one-on-one training sessions were delivered to early-career researchers on topics such as open access publishing, repository usage, and open science practices. Public speaking and outreach workshops added practical skills to the programme.
• EduDoc Platform: A dedicated subpage called EduDoc was launched to centralise resources for PhD students and early-career researchers.
• Open Science Cafés: Six cafés have been hosted so far, exceeding initial targets, with a seventh planned. These popular events foster discussion and engagement on open science topics suggested by participants.
• New Repositories: Platforms for publications, video materials, and outreach efforts were established to ensure accessibility and continuity.

Metrics and Progress Tracking

The pilot has demonstrated measurable success through structured indicators:

• Open Access Publications: The target of 70% openly available publications by Month 9 was surpassed with an achievement of 72%, reflecting robust progress toward end-of-project goals.
• Training Impact: Lifelong learning programmes introduced during the pilot will continue evolving based on participant feedback.
• Outreach Tools: Resources designed to help early-career researchers plan their own initiatives have been developed and integrated into broader institutional strategies.

Alignment with Broader Initiatives

The timing of OPUS has been particularly beneficial for University of Rijeka, coinciding with efforts to update its Human Resources Strategy for Researchers (HRS4R) Action Plan. Activities under OPUS have been coordinated with other projects such as COARA Boost Project OSCAR, launched in collaboration with the University of Cyprus.

Looking Ahead

As the pilot concludes, many of its successful activities will be sustained beyond the project’s timeline. The EduDoc platform will be regularly updated, Open Science Cafés will continue as recurring events, and training programmes will remain accessible to researchers at all levels. By embedding these practices into institutional frameworks, Rijeka is not only advancing open science locally but also contributing significantly to broader European efforts under OPUS.

Updates on UEFISCDI in Romania, OPUS Pilot Implementation, and Next Activities

The Executive Agency for Higher Education, Research, Development, and Innovation Funding (UEFISCDI) has taken a national-level approach to its involvement in the OPUS project, reflecting its role as Romania’s main funder of competitive research and the national support entity for Open Science. The pilot aimed to advance Romania’s National Open Science Strategy, with particular emphasis on implementing FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable)DMP.

Integrating Open Science into Funding Instruments
A significant milestone of the pilot was the introduction of Open Science and FAIR DMP requirements into one of UEFISCDI’s major funding programmes, with a total budget of €320 million. For the first time, applicants were required to explicitly detail their Open Science practices and outline their plans for managing research data according to FAIR principles.If the proposal is funded, the beneficiary must develop a data management plan (DMP) within the first six months of implementation. This programme  is expected to fund 20–24 projects over five years, involving approximately 200–240 researchers.  The duration of the projects is five years, with a possible extension of up to two years.

Key Intervention Areas
The pilot’s intervention points included several important activities that were implemented:

• Policy intervention: Seeking approval to incorporate FAIR DMPs into the funding instrument. 
• Policy intervention: Including FAIR DMP provisions into the application form and evaluation criteria of the funding instrument.
• Awareness Intervention: Developing information package (incl. about DMPs) for researchers applying to the program call.
• Resource Intervention: Develop DMP template for researchers in the program call.

Despite some delays during the evaluation phase of the projects UEFISCDI anticipates that grant contracts will be signed by summer 2025.

Future Developments
Looking ahead, UEFISCDI is preparing DMP related specifications to adapt its national institutional platformse.g. BrainMap, which connects over 65,000 researchers and project reporting/monitoring platform.Approval institutional processes for these adjustments are underway. This aligns with broader efforts to develop a new researcher profile within BrainMap platformthat supports Open Science practices.

In the upcoming period, the DMP template will be tested with researchers from the RDI and OS communities and adjusted based on their feedback.

Expanding Impact Beyond OPUS
The pilot’s success has already influenced other funding instruments. Open Science and FAIR DMP requirements have been integrated into two additional funding programmes.  The information packages for these funding instruments were put into  public consultations. The related funding competitions are currently being prepared.  This represented a significant step forward in aligning national research funding practices with broader Open Science practices and the provisions of the
National Strategy on Research, Innovation, and Smart Specialisation (2022–2027) and national OS strategic framework. .

Through its participation in OPUS, UEFISCDI has laid a strong foundation for advancing Open Science practices in Romania. The integration of FAIR DMP into funding mechanisms (including evaluation criteria) marks a transformative step in modernising research assessment. With ongoing efforts to expand Open Science requirements across funding instruments, UEFISCDI is poised to ensure that the impact of OPUS endures well beyond its formal conclusion.

Updates on Research Council of Lithuania’s OPUS Pilot Implementation and Next Activities

Research Council of Lithuania introduced an Open Science Ambassadors initiative, aiming to institutionalise OS leadership by June from their existing cohort members.

The Research Council of Lithuania (RCL) has been actively advancing its OPUS pilot programme, focusing on three core areas: research, education, and valorisation. Since the last mutual learning meeting in Bucharest, the Council has made significant progress in fostering Open Science practices across Lithuanian research institutions.

Structure and Cohort Engagement
The pilot involves a cohort of 23 principal investigators (PIs) selected through a single call, representing six research institutions in Lithuania. To enhance coordination and impact, RCL established an Advisory Board comprising four members, including the Executive Director, whose high-level involvement has proven instrumental despite not being initially planned. Monthly meetings with the cohort have been pivotal in maintaining engagement among researchers from diverse scientific fields. Setting the full calendar of meetings at the start of the year has ensured consistent participation.

Indicators and Progress
The pilot is testing specific OPUS indicators across three categories:
Research
Data Management Plans (DMPs): Embedded into the application process, applicants are required to submit DMPs if their projects involve data usage. However, these plans are rarely evaluated—a gap RCL aims to address by introducing guidance and templates by May. Selected DMPs will also be made public as examples of good practice.
Open Access Publications: Articles are being collected for evaluation, with openness assessments scheduled by May.

Education
Open Science Skills Certificates: A “training of trainers” workshop was conducted for cohort members and Advisory Board participants. These trained researchers are now expected to deliver sessions within their institutions using provided materials.
Open Science Courses: Approximately 81% of institutions have already begun offering training on Open Science practices, covering topics such as open access, policy landscapes, and citizen science. Practical workshops have encouraged researchers to envision Open Science in Lithuania by 2030.

Valorisation
Sharing Open Science Knowledge: Researchers are documenting institutional training sessions informally through photos and participation numbers while tagging RCL and OPUS on social media—a flexible approach welcomed by participants.

Achievements and Future Goals
The pilot has fostered significant dialogue between funding organisations and research-performing institutions. Initially, researchers expressed frustration over issues such as open access requirements and funding constraints. However, constructive discussions have since emerged, leading to greater engagement in policy development.
One notable outcome is the anticipated training impact: by May 31, up to 5,285 individuals may have received training within Lithuanian institutions—a remarkable achievement if realised. Additionally, cohort members participated in the Inside Trust Barometer survey, sparking valuable conversations about trust in Open Science despite challenging results.

Sustaining Momentum Beyond OPUS
RCL is developing a programme for Open Science Ambassadors to be announced in June, ensuring continued engagement beyond the pilot’s conclusion. The Advisory Board’s involvement has embedded Open Science practices into institutional frameworks, with outcomes feeding directly into new projects at RCL.

Citizen science remains an area for growth; many researchers were unfamiliar with effective public engagement strategies—a challenge that RCL views as an exciting opportunity for development.
In summary, the OPUS pilot has catalysed transformative change within Lithuania’s research landscape. By addressing gaps in data management evaluation, expanding training programmes, and fostering constructive dialogue among stakeholders, RCL is laying the groundwork for sustained progress in Open Science practices across the nation.

Insights from the Q&A Session

The Q&A session provided an engaging platform for clarifying various aspects of the OPUS project and its implementation across institutions. Discussions ranged from citizen science activities and repository integration to communication strategies and templates for data management plans (DMPs). Participants shared valuable insights into the challenges and opportunities associated with promoting Open Science practices, particularly in academic and public contexts.

Citizen Science and Repository Use

One of the key topics raised was the inclusion of citizen science content in repositories. There was a consensus that while this could be beneficial, it requires careful consideration of user needs and repository functionality. The discussion highlighted the importance of ensuring that repositories serve as practical tools for researchers while also fostering broader engagement with scientific work.

Communication Tools and Public Engagement

Participants emphasised the need to expand Open Science communication beyond academic channels. While traditional methods such as departmental resources and internal platforms remain effective, institutions are increasingly exploring public presentations, webinars, and science series to reach wider audiences. Plans to host webinars targeting Greek-speaking audiences and bi-monthly sessions on Open Science topics were particularly noteworthy, demonstrating a commitment to inclusivity and impact.

Templates and Administrative Processes

The conversation around templates for DMPs underscored the importance of balancing practicality with thoroughness. While templates have been translated and adapted to institutional needs, they primarily serve as administrative tools to ensure required sections are completed. The idea of public consultation was raised as a means to refine these templates further, though concerns were expressed about the time and resources needed for deeper thematic discussions.

Staffing Challenges and Long-Term Planning

A recurring theme was the administrative burden placed on programme officers tasked with verifying DMPs. Institutions are considering solutions such as centralised data management centres or dedicated open science teams to address these challenges. This reflects a growing recognition of the need for long-term planning and sustainable support structures for Open Science initiatives.

The discussions during the Q&A session highlighted several overarching themes that are critical to advancing Open Science practices:

1. Balancing Academic Rigour with Accessibility: While Open Science remains primarily focused on academic audiences, there is a growing push to make it more accessible to the general public through innovative communication tools such as webinars, podcasts, and public presentations.
2. Administrative Efficiency: Institutions are striving to streamline processes related to DMPs and other Open Science requirements. The use of templates and administrative checks provides a practical solution, though deeper evaluations may require additional resources or expertise.
3. Collaborative Approaches: The importance of collaboration—whether through advisory boards, institutional teams, or centralised data management centres—was repeatedly emphasised as a way to share workloads and foster collective ownership of Open Science goals.
4. Citizen Science Opportunities: While still underexplored in many institutions, citizen science represents a promising avenue for engaging non-academic audiences in scientific research. Efforts to integrate citizen science into repositories could enhance its visibility and impact.
5. Sustainability Beyond OPUS: Participants expressed a strong desire to continue building on the foundations laid by OPUS. Initiatives such as Open Science Ambassadors, long-term data stewardship planning, and expanded training programmes are key steps toward ensuring lasting progress.

Overall, the session demonstrated a shared commitment among institutions to overcome challenges, innovate solutions, and broaden the reach of Open Science practices both within academia and beyond. As projects move toward their conclusion, there is clear momentum to sustain these efforts into future initiatives.

The Plenary Discussion: Refining the Future: Reflections and Forward Strategies for the OPUS RAF Pilot

The plenary discussion that followed was both critical and generative, focusing on the twin themes of implementation and sustainability of the Researcher Assessment Framework (RAF).

On implementation, participants widely agreed that the RAF had successfully introduced a culture of fairness and inclusivity but could benefit from greater user-friendliness and a more modular design to cater to diverse institutional contexts. A recurring suggestion was to develop a shared vocabulary and guidelines, enabling clearer interpretation and smoother integration of RAF practices across research units. While coordination among stakeholders was praised, some argued for earlier involvement of broader institutional players and more ambitious timelines, which would allow for deeper engagement and more transformative changes.

When asked what they would do differently, several pilot teams stressed the need to build in stronger communication, especially regarding the personal benefits of open science. Many researchers still perceive the cost of embracing OS, such as time, resources, and visibility, as outweighing its individual rewards. Some also highlighted that the impact of RAF will take time to materialise in formal assessment cycles, which demands long-term commitment and strategic patience.

The sustainability conversation brought a forward-looking tone. While most institutions expressed a desire to continue many elements of the pilot, they also acknowledged the need for increased resources: human, technical, and financial. Some interventions, particularly those requiring complex technical infrastructure or cross-departmental integration, might not be scalable without targeted support. Others pointed to the need for ongoing training and institutional buy-in from leadership, suggesting that sustainability hinges as much on culture as on capacity.

Institutions echoed a unified call for better alignment between institutional and national policies, as well as more incentive mechanisms in researcher evaluations. As one participant put it: “Recognition must meet effort. Open science must not remain a noble ideal, it has to become a career enabler.”

The plenary discussion, spanning over an hour and a half, explored key questions about improving the Researcher Assessment Framework (RAF) and scaling Open Science initiatives beyond the pilot phase.

Reflections on Implementation

The discussion opened with a critical evaluation of the RAF, a central tool for assessing Open Science practices. Participants highlighted several areas for improvement:

• Flexibility and Adaptability: While the RAF is comprehensive, its implementation could benefit from greater flexibility, allowing institutions to tailor it to their strategic goals. Suggestions included adding new categories, such as reproducible research, and incorporating horizontal activities that span multiple categories (research, organisation, and education).
• Simplification of Documentation: The current format of RAF documentation was described as overly lengthy and repetitive, which may deter first-time users. Streamlining the framework and providing concrete examples of interventions were proposed as ways to enhance usability.
• Technical Challenges: Implementing reproducible research within the RAF remains difficult due to technical barriers and platform limitations. Tools like Quarto were mentioned as promising but still too complex for widespread adoption.

Participants also discussed practical aspects of implementation, such as scheduling webinars and maintaining regular engagement with researchers. A hybrid format combining face-to-face and online interactions was praised for fostering trust and collaboration among participants.

Insights on Sustainability

The session then shifted focus to sustainability—how Open Science initiatives can be maintained and scaled beyond the pilot phase. Key takeaways included:

• Parts to Continue or Discontinue: Successful pilot activities, such as Open Science training sessions and community events like Open Science cafés, were identified as worth continuing. Conversely, less impactful interventions will naturally phase out.
• Scaling Challenges: Scaling requires more than additional resources; institutional backing and top-level management support are essential. Participants stressed the importance of embedding Open Science practices into research assessments to ensure long-term adoption.
• Incentives for Researchers: A recurring theme was the need for tangible recognition of researchers’ contributions to Open Science. Without career advancement incentives tied to these efforts, engagement may wane over time.

Cross-Cutting Themes

Several broader issues emerged during the discussion:

1. Engaging Decision-Makers: While early-career researchers are often targeted in Open Science initiatives, decision-makers hold the power to enact lasting change. Participants emphasised the need to involve these individuals in training and dissemination efforts.
2. Citizen Science Potential: Despite its promise, citizen science remains underdeveloped in many institutions. Practical tools and policies are needed to help researchers integrate public engagement into their work effectively.
3. Systemic Barriers: National frameworks and policies often lag behind institutional efforts in Open Science. Participants called for stronger mandates from entities like the European Commission to align national policies with Open Science goals.
4. Ethical Considerations: Discussions touched on ethical dilemmas surrounding open access data usage in AI models and dual-use research. Clear regulations are needed to address these modern challenges.

The plenary discussion underscored that while enthusiasm drives many Open Science initiatives, reliance on individual motivation is unsustainable without institutional structures and incentives. Participants agreed that small steps—such as fostering collaboration between researchers and librarians—can gradually shift academic culture.

Looking ahead, scaling Open Science requires a balanced approach combining top-down policy mandates with bottom-up institutional engagement. Mutual learning remains a cornerstone of this transformation, enabling institutions to share best practices and overcome shared challenges.

Ultimately, embedding Open Science into research assessment systems will be key to ensuring its longevity. As one participant aptly noted, “This isn’t a one-off effort but a long-term transformation.” The OPUS project has laid strong foundations, but continued dialogue and action will be essential to sustain its impact across Europe’s research landscape.

Open Science and Research Assessment: Challenges and Institutional Dilemmas Explored at OPUS Session

The afternoon programme resumed with a thought-provoking keynote by Professor Zacharias Maniades, ERA Chair in Science and Innovation Policy at UCY’s SInnoPSis Group. Maniades addressed the complex intersection of Open Science and researcher evaluation. He questioned the systemic inertia of current academic incentives and warned against the commodification of openness. “Open Science,” he argued, “is a public good, but one that must be made personally valuable to each actor in the ecosystem.”

In a thought-provoking address at the OPUS Mutual Learning Session, Zacharias Maniades, Research Professor of Economics and ERA Chair in Science and Innovation Policy at the University of Cyprus, dissected the systemic challenges of aligning Open Science principles with institutional and individual incentives. His presentation, grounded in economic theory and empirical observations, sparked rigorous debate on the unintended consequences of Open Science policies and the complexities of operationalising transparency in research.

Open Science as a Public Good: Incentives and Misalignments

Maniades framed Open Science as a public good—a concept where societal benefits outweigh individual gains. While Open Science practices like data sharing and reproducibility promise greater scrutiny and faster scientific progress, he argued that the personal costs for researchers often exceed immediate rewards. This misalignment, he noted, risks creating resistance, particularly in disciplines where transparency demands impose significant workloads.

“When you impose principles of transparency on certain disciplines, researchers may feel disproportionately burdened compared to others. This can breed perceptions of injustice,” Maniades observed, citing tensions in fields like biomedicine versus humanities.

Despite progress—such as a rise in raw data sharing from <1% to ~20% in biomedicine over the past decade—he cautioned that progress remains uneven. “Open Science incentivisation often benefits from ‘carrots’ like career advancement, but without systemic recognition, these remain fragile,” he added.

Publishers and Industry: Hijacking the Open Science Agenda?

A critical portion of Maniades’ analysis focused on how publishers and private industry have adapted—and arguably distorted—Open Science principles. While Open Access (OA) mandates have increased accessibility, he questioned whether exorbitant article processing charges (APCs) truly serve the ethos of openness:

“Is it truly Open Access if publishing costs thousands of euros? Publishers have embraced OA models, but often in ways that prioritise profit over scrutiny”.

He highlighted concerning trends in peer review quality, recounting a personal experience of being asked to review a biomedical paper despite lacking domain expertise—a practice he called “casual” and detrimental to scientific rigour.

On industry engagement, Maniades expressed scepticism about reconciling corporate secrecy with Open Science ideals, referencing the Theranos scandal as a cautionary tale:

“Theranos claimed groundbreaking discoveries without peer-reviewed validation. This exemplifies the risks when private research bypasses scrutiny”.

Institutional Heterogeneity and Unintended Consequences

Maniades emphasised the difficulty of implementing uniform Open Science policies across diverse disciplines. For instance, reproducibility requirements in experimental economics may demand extensive documentation, whereas humanities research faces different transparency benchmarks. Without disciplinary adjustments, he warned, top-down mandates risk resentment and inconsistent adoption.

He also critiqued the vagueness of Open Science definitions, which allow institutions to “hijack” the movement for reputational gains without substantive change. “Without clear, enforceable standards, Open Science becomes a buzzword rather than a transformative practice,” he argued.

Case Studies and Participant Reflections

The Q&A session deepened these themes. Alina Irimia of UEFISCDI shared a cautionary example from Romania, where a researcher exploited Open Access incentives to claim 60 publication awards in one year, sparking a national scandal. “This exposed how well-intentioned policies can backfire without robust checks,” she noted, underscoring the need for capacity-building and nuanced oversight.

Participants agreed that scrutiny mechanisms—such as third-party replication services—are essential but underfunded. Maniades proposed allocating dedicated funds for independent verification, stressing that “reproducibility cannot be an afterthought”.

Pathways Forward: Balancing Idealism and Pragmatism

While acknowledging Open Science’s transformative potential, Maniades urged institutions to anticipate unintended consequences and adopt flexible frameworks. Key recommendations included:

• Discipline-specific guidelines: Tailoring transparency requirements to field-specific workflows.
• Enhanced peer review infrastructure: Investing in reviewer training and domain-matched assignments.
• Incentive realignment: Linking Open Science practices to career progression and grant eligibility.

The session closed with consensus on Open Science as a “learning process”—one requiring continuous dialogue between funders, institutions, and researchers. As Maniades concluded:

“We must balance idealism with pragmatism. Open Science isn’t a checkbox exercise; it’s a cultural shift demanding patience, resources, and collaboration”.

The OPUS initiative, through such critical exchanges, continues to navigate these complexities, striving to embed Open Science as a sustainable pillar of research integrity—one peer-reviewed paper, policy revision, and institutional partnership at a time.

Panagiotis discussed the philosophical and practical tension between personal ambition and the collective ethos of Open Science. Both highlighted the need for scrutiny, transparency, and better incentive structures, while cautioning against superficial compliance or performative policies.

Collaboration as a Driver of Change

Throughout the session, one theme remained constant: collaboration as a driver of change. From creating cross-disciplinary networks to forging new standards for researcher assessment, the OPUS Mutual Learning format has proven essential in bridging the gap between theory and practice.

As discussions concluded, participants reaffirmed their collective mission: to make research not only more open and inclusive, but also more meaningful, measurable, and mission-driven.