Accessibility Tools
For Open Science to become a daily reality in the lives of researchers across Europe, a fundamental reform of how we evaluate research is crucial, argues Pastora Martínez Samper.
Open Science is a transformative movement built on the core principles of transparency, collaboration and the open sharing of knowledge for the benefit of all society. It promises to accelerate discovery, enhance the rigor of research and strengthen the relationship between science and the public. Indeed, this movement encapsulates the spirit of the 'fifth freedom', the push for the free movement of knowledge proposed in the Letta report and recently integrated in the proposal for a European Research Area Act.
Yet, a profound paradox lies at the heart of academia: the very system designed to recognize and reward scientific achievement actively undermines these ideals. The institutional culture of research assessment, with its outdated emphasis on a couple of metrics (Journal Impact Factor and h-index), creates a powerful disincentive for researchers to embrace open practices.
For Open Science to move from a progressive ideal to a systemic reality, a fundamental reform of how we evaluate research is not merely an adjacent goal. It is the central enabling factor. The two movements are inextricably linked and must evolve in tandem.
The strategic alignment of the values of research institutions with evaluation practices is essential for progress. However, the European academic system is still caught in a trap where the proxy for quality has become more important than quality itself.
The publish or perish culture has mutated into an intense pressure to publish in ‘high-impact’ journals, creating a streetlight effect where we only measure what is easily illuminated. This narrow focus on convenient indicators leaves vast and crucial areas of scholarship – such as research in the social sciences and humanities, non-English publications and contributions from low-tech sectors systematically – undervalued and in the dark.
Evidence from the European University Association’s Open Science surveys paints a stark picture of this misalignment. The 2019 data revealed that a staggering 75% of institutions use the Journal Impact Factor for individual career evaluations, entrenching a system that rewards prestige over substance (or ‘the container for the content’). This chasm between stated values and actual reward structures creates profound consequences for Open Science. The same survey showed that only 9% of respondents considered open science indicators ‘very important’ for career progression, while a subsequent survey found that 34% of institutions used no open science elements in their assessments whatsoever.
Even after the establishment of the Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA), more recent data from a 2024 survey conducted by the CoARA Working Group on Reforming Academic Career Assessment, showed that Open Science and Open Access score low in importance in current academic careers assessment, although they are expected to become more important as reforms advance. This data proves that while institutions may voice support for Open Science, their reward systems communicate that its practices are, at best, of low importance and, at worst, irrelevant, at least for the moment. This chasm constitutes the single greatest impediment to Open Science, one that assessment reform is now poised to dismantle.
The growing momentum behind research assessment reform is, in part, a direct consequence of the Open Science movement itself.
As the principles of openness and transparency have gained traction, they have cast a harsh light on the inadequacies of traditional evaluation. The reliance on journal-based metrics is now widely seen as a system that fosters not only an unhealthy research culture but also an unaffordable publication system, as stated by CoARA. This recognition connects the cultural costs of poor assessment with its unsustainable economic consequences.
EUA’s Open Science Agenda explicitly states that the scope of Open Science has expanded to include the ‘necessary changes in the way research and researchers are assessed’. The movement has matured beyond its initial focus on Open Access, recognizing that its ultimate success depends on fundamentally rewiring the academic reward system.
This creates a virtuous cycle: the more open science practices are adopted, the more urgent the need for assessment reform becomes. In turn, a reformed assessment system – one that values data sharing, collaboration, and societal engagement – is the only way to permanently embed Open Science into the daily practices of researchers.
The solution lies in a unified reform of both how research is evaluated and how it is communicated.
The 2025 EUA briefing on ‘Reclaiming academic ownership of the scholarly communication system’ makes this connection unequivocally clear. The briefing distills a critical insight: to create a just scholarly publishing ecosystem and break the academic world's costly dependence on a handful of commercial publishers, universities must accelerate the reform of research assessment.
The current system, which rewards publication in specific journals, directly reinforces the market power of large publishers. The issues of scholarly communication and research assessment are inseparable.
The path forward, therefore, demands a unified strategy to overcome the collective inertia born from a perceived first-mover disadvantage. Universities, funders and researchers must act in concert to champion evaluation frameworks that recognize a wider range of outputs and impacts. By embracing this dual reform, we can dismantle the barriers that hold both movements back, ensuring that the academic reward system finally aligns with the open, collaborative and equitable future that science and society demand.
