The European Open Science expert gives many talks a year on opening up research. Yet he believes that, in the future, Open Science will no longer be a priority. In this interview, he explains why FAIR data are essential, why changing mindsets takes time, and why a new generation of researchers could make openness the normal way of doing science.
When I was a researcher, I was always open-minded. I thought that if you make a scientific claim and want people to understand, verify, and trust what you're saying, then you should also make the evidence behind it available. That has always struck me as evidently true. That doesn't mean everything should be open. Biomedical, military, intelligence, and other sensitive data should not be openly available. I'm not talking about saying, “Look, I've just discovered a new way to enrich uranium in two weeks – let's share it with the world.” Let's not do that, because then there might not be much of a world left. Some things need to remain restricted. My own involvement in Open Science began in the Netherlands. I was involved in Open Access campaigns at Leiden University and, in many ways, was drawn into Open Science through the Dutch government's efforts in this area. I also worked closely on the European Open Science Cloud (EOSC), with Karel Luyben, who had a very clear vision of what Open Science could become.
When we talk about openness, it doesn't mean that everything has to be made available immediately. Openness is a spectrum. There is no need to share every dataset ever created or every version of every dataset. What certainly matters is making available the final version of the data that underpins published research. Research should be peer-reviewed, and the accompanying data should, in my opinion, be reviewed as well.
My expertise is fairly broad. I focus mainly on Open Science and the development of the EOSC. I am currently working on monitoring Open Science policies and practices across Europe. Another major area of my work is research careers: how to improve researchers' working conditions, reform research assessment, and make research careers more attractive and sustainable. Over the years, I have also worked on issues such as intersectoral mobility and research security initiatives aimed at protecting European research from foreign interference.
“When we talk about openness, it doesn't mean that everything has to be made available immediately. Openness is a spectrum. There is no need to share every dataset ever created or every version of every dataset.”
That changes over time as I always get interested in new topics. But I have always been passionate about promoting Open Science. It is for this reason that I give so many talks every year on the subject.
The workshops I give to early-career researchers. I particularly enjoy it when senior researchers are in the room because it usually leads to a lively debate. The younger researchers often arrive repeating what they have heard from senior colleagues: that open research is expensive and can damage a research career.
I never try to convince researchers. I simply give them the facts and let them decide for themselves. By the end of the session, many of them become strong advocates for openness.
“I never try to convince researchers. I simply give them the facts and let them decide for themselves. By the end of the session, many of them become strong advocates for openness.”
At the moment, it is still largely a policy agenda. It started at the European level, is gradually being adopted at the national level, and is increasingly becoming part of institutional policies as well.
We need a much stronger culture of openness. Interestingly, researchers are some of the most traditional and conservative people I have ever met. The academic career system was not designed to reward openness. Scientific publishing has become a multibillion-euro industry built around journal subscriptions and article processing charges. Careers, prestige and reputation are still closely tied to this system.
Many journal editors and decision-makers are senior researchers themselves, so there is a natural tendency to preserve the existing structure. If we want meaningful change, we need greater openness in scholarly publishing, changes in research assessment, and above all, a different mindset.
I have been coming to the Czech Republic for many years, and I have seen many positive developments. There is a clear engagement from the government and senior researchers, and Czech universities are steadily moving towards Open Science.
EOSC is essentially a web of FAIR data, much like the internet is a web of hyperlinked texts. EOSC connects research outputs and makes them easier to discover and reuse through various infrastructures and services. Importantly, FAIR does not automatically mean open. You can have FAIR data which are restricted, and still findable and usable to some extent, or which may be opened at a later date. FAIR comes first. Openness depends on the nature of the data.
“Importantly, FAIR does not automatically mean open. You can have FAIR data which are restricted, and still findable and usable to some extent, or which may be opened at a later date.”
I believe so. Younger generations have grown up in a much more open environment, largely because of social media and digital technologies. Their default mindset is often to share and collaborate. If we can bring that mentality into research, change could happen much faster. In most institutions, change starts with one or two committed leaders and gradually spreads across the organisation. Change must come from the researchers themselves.
Delft University of Technology is one of the first examples that comes to mind. They were among the pioneers of data stewardship and have done a great deal to embed Open Science into the way the university operates. Delft also reformed its research assessment system, making it fairer to researchers and more supportive of Open Science practices.
Open Science should be like using a laptop. Does anyone talk about the need to use more laptops in science? No. We simply use them because they are part of how research is done.
I hope openness will become just as natural. At that point, we will stop talking about Open Science. It will simply be the way science is done.
“If we want meaningful change, we need greater openness in scholarly publishing, changes in research assessment, and above all, a different mindset.”
Gareth O'Neill is a Principal Consultant on Open Science at Technopolis Group specialising in open science, research careers, and the European Open Science Cloud (EOSC). He is an ambassador for cOAlition S and is developing the EOSC Open Science Observatory in the EOSC Track project. Gareth has recently developed the Research Career Framework in the SECURE project and has been involved in the Mutual Learning Exercise on Research Careers for the European Commission.
This year’s Summer School for Data Stewards, held in Malá Morávka in the Jeseníky Mountains, offered a practical programme focused on tools, skills and approaches that can make the everyday work of data stewards easier.
The 13th General Assembly of the EOSC Association (EOSC-A), held on 28–29 May 2026 in Brussels, confirmed that the European EOSC initiative is entering a new phase.
