“The biggest challenge is not implementing tools, but changing the way people think,” says Kristýna Zychová

Which institution are you currently affiliated with, and what is your role there in supporting open science and research data management?

At Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, I focus on coordinating and developing open science — from setting up processes and strategies to providing day-to-day support for researchers. The entire agenda is anchored within the CZU Library, which operates not only as a service unit, but also as a natural research partner and a driver of change.

At the same time, I work at Technology Centre Prague, where we recently completed a national analysis of the potential of Open Science and FAIR research data management in the Czech Republic. This allows me to see open science from both perspectives — how it looks at the level of strategies and policies, and how challenging it is to implement it in practice at a specific university. It also confirms that most of the challenges we face at CZU are not local, but systemic.

What has surprised you the most about open science so far?

What surprised me most is how much open science is about people rather than technologies or rules. I initially assumed the biggest challenge would be explaining the principles or implementing tools. In reality, it is far more difficult to change the way researchers think and work on a daily basis, especially when they already face significant administrative burdens and pressure to perform.

I was also surprised by the breadth of the whole topic. Open science intersects with data management, legal issues, security, technologies, and institutional governance, and the scope keeps expanding. Today, I see open science not as something that can simply be “implemented” once and for all, but as a gradual change that needs to be negotiated, explained, and embedded into the everyday functioning of an institution.

You work across several environments — from direct support for researchers to activities such as Open Science Week and various working groups. How do these roles connect with each other?

Much more than it might seem. Working directly with researchers gives me very concrete insight into real problems — what does not work, what does not make sense, and where people struggle. I then transfer these experiences into the strategic level, whether at the university or within national initiatives. At the same time, activities such as Open Science Week or EOSC networking help share experiences and connect people across institutions.

Professional communities and working groups also play a key role. From the very beginning, being involved in the open science community was essential for me. Sharing experiences, asking questions, and realizing that you are not facing these challenges alone. The same applies to the data steward community and international working groups. This kind of connection is indispensable — not only for sharing know-how, but because it allows us to move things forward together.

What types of researchers do you work with most often, and in what situations do they usually reach out to you?

Most often with researchers dealing with specific situations, projects, funder requirements, or research data management. However, a significant part of the work also involves collaboration across the entire university — with management, legal departments, security teams, project offices, and colleagues from individual faculties.

At Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, we have gradually built a network of support staff across the faculties who act as a bridge between the central level and individual departments. They help bring information into practice, while also providing feedback on what is actually happening at the faculties and what does — or does not — make sense in practice. They are also actively involved in commenting on strategic documents, which means these documents are not created in isolation, but through dialogue with the people they directly affect.

How has the role of research data support at institutions changed in recent years?

There has been a clear shift from isolated activities to a more systematic approach. In the past, the focus was mainly on consultations or addressing specific project requirements. Today, the discussion is much more about infrastructure, processes, competencies, and the long-term setup of support services. At Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, we are actively trying to build this shift — not just responding to individual requests, but creating an environment in which researchers can manage open science and FAIR data practices sustainably over the long term.

At the same time, however, the pressure on researchers is increasing. If institutions fail to create adequate support conditions, open science simply becomes another administrative burden. The national analysis confirms this as well — Czech science needs to move from a project-based approach to a systemic solution. Otherwise, open science will continue to be perceived as something extra, rather than a natural part of high-quality research.

The EOSC CZ Networking Day held in March was designed somewhat differently from typical networking events. Could you describe the thinking behind its preparation?

From the very beginning, together with colleagues from Prague-based institutions, we discussed how to design the event so that it would have a real impact. We quickly agreed that the biggest challenge would not be the programme itself, but getting researchers to actually attend. Events of this kind naturally tend to attract mainly support staff. We adapted the entire concept accordingly and selected topics that were not only important, but also practically useful. Most workshops were fully booked, and it was clear that the practical dimension was key for participants. For me personally, it confirmed that when open science is connected to the real day-to-day work of researchers, the interest is there.

What stayed with you the most from the event, and do you think it fulfilled its purpose?

One of the strongest moments was the lightning talks session, where representatives from different Prague-based institutions presented side by side. It suddenly became very clear that although each institution approaches open science in its own environment, the challenges they face are remarkably similar — and that no one is dealing with them alone. One colleague mentioned that it was a relief to hear that the same problems are being addressed elsewhere as well. At that moment, the event stopped feeling like a formal meeting and people genuinely started sharing experiences. And in my view, that is exactly where open science truly moves forward.

I can tell the networking event fulfilled its purpose because it did not end with the event itself. New contacts were already being formed during the day, and discussions opened up topics with the potential for further collaboration. If this leads to new partnerships or joint initiatives, then it achieved exactly the kind of impact we hoped for.