Matthew Lucas
(Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada)
Annabel Seyller
(Montreal Neurological Institute-Hospital, McGill University)
Hans De Jonge
(Dutch Research Council (NWO))
Paul Boselie
(Utrecht University)
Marin Dacos
(Ministry of Higher Education and Research, FRANCE)
Aleid de Jong
(Utrecht University)
Format:
Panel
Location:
Sessions:
Monday 30 June, -
Time zone: Europe/London
National frameworks for Open Science & metascience: lessons from Canada, France and the Netherlands.
Panel T1.3 at conference Metascience 2025.
This panel will discuss ambitious national frameworks for open science and metascience, compare approaches, identify lessons learned, and identify what is needed to create a next generation of national policies.
Long Abstract
Canada, France and the Netherlands are among the frontrunners in implementing national Open Science policies. We will present these ambitious national frameworks promoting Open Science, compare approaches and identify best practices. In particular, the question of how to use metascience to build the next generation of national Open Science policies will be adressed.
We will first present Canada’s strategies for advancing and measuring Open Science, as well as the progress and challenges in implementing Open Science, with insights from research institutes and funders.
We will then present France’s comprehensive National Open Science Plan and the role that metascience can play in ensuring that the results of the Plan are monitored and that the next generation of Open Science policies will be built on robust evidence.
The Dutch case will focus on the concrete effects of Open Science principles in universities, notably on the success of research grants, and present a broad RoR collaboration between national funders to ensure continuous evidence-based improvement of research and funding policies and practices.
This paper focuses on research of the open science transformation and the possible effects on research grant success (negative, neutral or positive) and the possible shifts in the nature of research grant success towards more teamwork / collaboration and more societal impact.
Long abstract
The open science movement builds on broadening the academic scope towards open access, FAIR data and software, societal impact, public engagement, and alternative forms of recognition and rewards in academia with more emphasis on team science and leadership. Little or nothing is known about the open science effects on research grant success of universities that have applied the new open science principles. This paper presents a case study of one Dutch university that started an open science program in 2018. The focus of the case study is on grant success data covering the period 2018-2024 including the following grants:
• National individual research grants through the Dutch funder NWO (VENI, VIDI, VICI and Rubicon);
• International individual research grants through EU funding such as ERC starting, consolidator and advanced grants;
• National and international collective grants, for example NWO Zwaartekracht;
• National and international grants explicitly aimed at societal impact such as the Dutch NWA grants.
The explorative data analysis focuses on possible positive and negative effects of applying open science on annual individual and collective research grants. The paper also looks at potential shifts in grant success, in particular a shift from individual to collective research grants linked to team science in the open science movement, and a shift towards impact focused research grants linked to the societal impact and public engagement attention in open science. Where possible the data of the Dutch university will be benchmarked with other Dutch universities.
GRIOS aims to advance Open Science by synthesizing existing evidence to guide policies and promote global adoption, while identifying barriers and addressing evidence gaps. The panel will present the project's launch, inviting support and active collaboration.
Long abstract
Emerging from G7 work on Research on Research and Open Science, the Global Research Initiative on Open Science (GRIOS) is dedicated to deepening our understanding of Open Science practices and fostering their widespread adoption among governments, funding agencies, and research institutions. Inspired by the role of the IPCC in synthesizing climate science for policymakers, GRIOS seeks to generate high-quality evidence syntheses to inform and guide Open Science policies at a global level.
To achieve this goal, GRIOS will employ a broad range of evidence synthesis methods to systematically assess the effectiveness, benefits, and limitations of key Open Science practices, including study registration, data sharing, and research transparency. Beyond evaluating current practices, GRIOS will identify obstacles that are leading to the uneven uptake of Open Science policies across countries and organisations. By addressing these challenges, the initiative aims to support funders, institutions, and policymakers in refining their strategies and maximizing the impact of Open Science initiatives.
Additionally, GRIOS aims to identify important knowledge gaps and federate the global research-on-Open Science communities around a common research agenda.
The panel will present the initial phases of the project, its organization and governance, with the aim to invite funders and the metascience community to support and actively participate in our work.
This session covers how the Dutch Research Council NWO had traditionally supported Open Science, why the need is felt to add research on Open Science to that policy mix and what (first) steps are being taken.
Long abstract
The Dutch Research Council NWO has a long history of supporting Open Science. The first open access policy dates from 2009, the first RDM policy from 2013. Policies to promote Open Science have developed gradually over time. Initially, the focus was on grant requirements and funding. More recently, recognition and rewards of open science in assessment procedures has been added. Increasingly, however, it is felt that Research on Open Science should be added to this policy mix. The fact that NWO was asked to take responsibility for the Open Science NL programme - a 10-year funding programme to support the transition to Open Science in the Netherlands - has allowed it to take concrete steps. This contribution briefly considers why Research to Open Science is felt important and what initial steps have been taken at NWO.
This panel will examine Canada’s progress and challenges in implementing open science while linking to the global context. It will gather insights from research institutes, metascientists, funders and intellectual property experts, to discuss strategies for advancing and measuring open science.
Long abstract
When you think of Canada, images of hockey rinks, snowy landscapes, Tim Hortons coffee, and breathtaking wilderness might come to mind. In this panel, we are diving into a different side of Canada: its contributions to open science. We will bring together key players from across the research ecosystem—research institutions, national funders, metascientists, and academia-industry partnerships—to discuss the present and future of open science in Canada. The panel will highlight two national consortiums aimed at transforming research culture: The Canadian Reproducibility Network (CaRN) and their metascience study mapping research reproducibility in Canada, and the Tanenbaum Open Science Institute (TOSI)’s alliance of Canadian research institutions committed to open science, and their approach to measuring progress including an automated open science dashboard. A research funder’s perspective will be provided through findings from a metaresearch study on the implementation of the federal Tri-Agencies’ data management policy. Additionally, we will explore the intersection of intellectual property and open science in academia-industry partnerships, enabling the rise of an open drug discovery ecosystem in Canada. Through this cross-sectional discussion, we will address key challenges and opportunities in positioning Canada amongst global leaders in open science innovation, while also connecting our discussion to the broader international open science landscape.
Annabel Seyller (Montreal Neurological Institute-Hospital, McGill University)
Hans De Jonge (Dutch Research Council (NWO))
Paul Boselie (Utrecht University)
Marin Dacos (Ministry of Higher Education and Research, FRANCE)
Aleid de Jong (Utrecht University)
Short Abstract
This panel will discuss ambitious national frameworks for open science and metascience, compare approaches, identify lessons learned, and identify what is needed to create a next generation of national policies.
Long Abstract
Canada, France and the Netherlands are among the frontrunners in implementing national Open Science policies. We will present these ambitious national frameworks promoting Open Science, compare approaches and identify best practices. In particular, the question of how to use metascience to build the next generation of national Open Science policies will be adressed.
We will first present Canada’s strategies for advancing and measuring Open Science, as well as the progress and challenges in implementing Open Science, with insights from research institutes and funders.
We will then present France’s comprehensive National Open Science Plan and the role that metascience can play in ensuring that the results of the Plan are monitored and that the next generation of Open Science policies will be built on robust evidence.
The Dutch case will focus on the concrete effects of Open Science principles in universities, notably on the success of research grants, and present a broad RoR collaboration between national funders to ensure continuous evidence-based improvement of research and funding policies and practices.
Accepted papers
Session 1 Monday 30 June, 2025, -