The transition towards open research practices has been a longstanding priority for Dutch academics. Over the last decade, the bottom-up support for open research practices has been accompanied by consolidated, national-level support. This country-level initiative has resulted in the 2017 National Plan for Open Science (NPOS) and the 2022 Open Science in 2030 in the Netherlands. It also led to the formation of Open Science Netherlands (OS-NL) as a coordinating body to disseminate funding to support the expansion of Open Science within the Dutch research landscape. Following the approach outlined in the 2021 UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science, OS-NL takes a broad view of open research activities by defining Open Science as an inclusive construct that combines various movements and practices aiming:

• To make multilingual scientific knowledge openly available, accessible and reusable for everyone.
• To increase scientific collaborations and sharing of information for the benefit of science and society.
• And to open the processes of scientific knowledge creation, evaluation, and communication to societal actors beyond the traditional scientific community.

In this definition, open scientific knowledge includes scientific publications, research data, metadata, educational resources, software and source code, and open hardware.

In addition to the commitments to practical transformation, it is recognised that integrating Open Science in the Netherlands requires an accompanying culture change. In line with the UNESCO Recommendation, NPOS outlines key values that are necessary for the responsible and inclusive roll-out of open research practices to benefit both academia and society. These are quality and integrity, collective benefit, equity and fairness and diversity and inclusiveness. In both UNESCO and NPOS framings, these values are positioned as integral to the successful transition to Open Science.

In 2025 OS-NL released a tender to develop a national monitoring strategy for the roll-out of Open Science in the Netherlands. The plan to consolidate progress at a national level is timely, and aligns with extra-national activities, including the establishment of the Open Science Monitoring Initiative, consultations from UNESCO for national monitoring strategies, and national-level monitoring already underway from EOSC. The considerable discussion around how to monitor Open Science, and considerable variation of current monitoring strategies at national (such as the French Open Science monitor) and institutional levels means that discussions around a Dutch strategy are urgently needed.

A workshop on institutional Open Science programmes

On the 26th and 27th of September 2024 the Universities of Leiden and Delft co-hosted a workshop titled Diverse Approaches to Monitoring Open Science. The workshop invited Open Science coordinators from all 14 Dutch universities to share their institutional approaches to Open Science. The goals of the workshop were:

• To share experiences of monitoring Open Science at an institutional level and to identify opportunities for best practice sharing.
• To identify areas of Open Science that currently do not have robust monitoring strategies and require further attention.
• To discuss how institutional monitoring can align and support international monitoring strategies such as UNESCO and EOSC.
• To create a community of researchers and practitioners to continue working on the development of responsible Open Science monitoring strategies and tools.

The first day of the workshop involved presentations from all represented universities and exercises in consolidation and contrasting institutional Open Science programmes. The second day was used as an opportunity to reflect on the commonalities and differences between institutional approaches to Open Science in light of the national-level monitoring activities proposed by OS-NL and UNESCO. Further discussion focused on how institutional Open Science programmes aligned with activities on research integrity, Reward and Recognition (R&R) reform and equality, diversity and inclusivity. The full programme and list of speakers can be viewed on the event webpage.

For the activities of day 1, all universities were asked to submit three slides outlining their current approach to Open Science, any monitoring activities underway and how their Open Science programme was (not) linked to R&R reform. These slides were consolidated into a deck that formed the basis for the discussion. Through contrasting institutional approaches the following observations were formed.

1. Open Science programmes vary considerably between institutions

All universities included Open Access and FAIR/Open Data in their Open Science strategies. Nonetheless, other elements included in these institutional plans varied considerably. Additional elements included Open Software, Open Hardware, Citizen Science, Engagement with Industry, and Research Impact. It became apparent that the framing of Open Science at an institutional level reflected, at least in part, the ethos and priorities of the institution. 

2. Societal engagement is framed differently between Open Science programmes

Many of the institutional Open Science programmes included activities aimed at engagement with society. Different framings included Citizen Science, public/civic engagement, public communication and engagement with industry. From the discussion, it became apparent that these framings had considerable impact on the types of activities underway.  

3. Open Science programmes are embedded differently at institutional levels and have different leadership constellations

All institutions acknowledged considerable variation between faculties in relation to the uptake of open research practices. Within each institution, leadership for the roll-out of Open Science was differently positioned. In some institutions the programme was coordinated by a central committee, in some by the library, and in some cases considerable autonomy was given to individual faculties. Moreover, it became apparent that budgets for Open Science programmes and capacities for training, support and infrastructural investment varied. Whether these differences impacted on the roll-out of institutional programmes remains to be seen.

4. The connection between Open Science and R&R varies considerably

While it was widely recognised that better and more systematic recognition and rewarding of Open Science was integral to success, this remained an issue of considerable discussion. Despite the UNL programme on R&R reform explicitly highlighting the need to reward Open Science activities, this connection was absent in some institutions.  

5. Monitoring open research practices is far from systematized

None of the institutions represented had comprehensive monitoring strategies in place. Some institutions conducted surveys and some were looking to visualise elements of their Open Science programmes through dashboards. Nonetheless, all institutions confirmed that future monitoring of open research practices was a key element in their programme success.

6. Value embedding and culture change are difficult to address

All representatives from the institutions recognised the integral role of culture change and values in the responsible transition to Open Science. The figure below outlines the values and principles identified in the UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science as driving Open Science and enabling culture change. All participants agreed that systematically initiating activities specifically to drive value and culture change is extremely complicated. Moreover, monitoring cultural change or value acquisition is very difficult.

Implications for national monitoring discussions

The findings of the workshop clearly demonstrated the breadth of Open Science activities underway in the Netherlands. Each institution has developed an Open Science programme that showcases activities that reflect the institutional character and priorities. Nonetheless, through the discussions it became apparent that good practices and initiatives are transferable and cross-institutional dialogue is vital.

The findings of the workshop raise some important reflection points for the evolution of the OS-NL national monitoring strategy. These are:

• There is no “one way” of developing institutional Open Science programmes at Dutch universities. Any monitoring strategy will have to take this into consideration and avoid assuming broad commonalities.
• Selecting Open Science activities to align with institutional priorities is an important means of embedding a cultural change. Centralised monitoring must safeguard diversity and avoid imposing requirements.
• In light of extra-national monitoring in development or underway (ie. EOSC and UNESCO), a national monitoring strategy should avoid additional reporting burdens by aligning as far as possible with existing strategies and data collection.
• A national monitoring strategy should examine how to monitor culture and value changes.
• Monitoring processes leading to change and impact, rather than products/outputs, aligns with the NPOS and UNESCO ambitions of Open Science for collective benefit.
• Further discussion is urgently needed with R&R innovators to ensure that all Open Science activities undertaken by individuals are adequately rewarded. This needs to take into account the diversity of Open Science practices across disciplines.

Header image by redcharlie on Unsplash.

DOI: 10.59350/k6y9n-4r562 (export/download/cite this blog post)