Open Science in FP10 & Open Science and Research Assessment

This report summarizes the 3rd Open Science EARMA Thematic Group event, held in Brussels on October 20-21, 2025. The event focused on the strategic direction of Open Science (OS) for the upcoming FP10 Framework Programme and the reform of research assessment.<br>Day 1: Open Science in FP10Discussions centered on a roadmap for FP10 based on six priorities, including balancing openness with research security, incentivizing OS through Responsible Research Assessment, and fostering global equity. Key themes included:Security and Openness: Participants discussed transitioning toward an "as open as possible, as secure as possible" model, emphasizing the need for evidence-based risk assessment rather than blanket restrictions<br><br>Infrastructure and Sustainability: The essential role of "invisible infrastructure"—data stewards, librarians, and legal experts—was highlighted as critical for institutional resilience.<br><br>AI and Data: Participants debated the challenges posed by AI, including the proliferation of low-quality publications and the necessity for "AI-Ready" standards. There was interest in exploring adaptive or revocable licensing to better suit dynamic data environments.<br>Equity: Concerns were raised that OS compliance requirements might disadvantage smaller institutions in "Widening Countries," necessitating explicit capacity-building measures.<br><br>Day 2: Research Assessment ReformThe second day featured a World Café session where participants exchanged best practices for assessing and incentivizing OS contributions. Major takeaways included:Shift in Metrics: Participants discussed moving away from proprietary databases and conventional metrics like the Journal Impact Factor toward open bibliometrics and narrative CVs.Institutional Implementation: Groups shared various local initiatives, such as the use of OpenAlex, the "OA Monitor," and training modules for the responsible use of research metrics.Challenges: Recurring obstacles include the persistent influence of traditional rankings, the cultural difficulty of changing recruitment practices, and the need for greater support for research staff career paths.<br>