Policy in the Making: Inside the First OpenAIRE Open Science Policy Training Programme

Designing an Open Science policy is one thing. Getting it adopted, implemented, and monitored inside a real institution is another. That gap is what the OpenAIRE Open Science Policy Training Programme was built to close, and the response to its first edition showed just how widely that gap is felt.

A competitive and diverse first cohort

We received 64 applications for the first run of the programme. From these, 22 participants were selected based on evaluations by three independent experts.

The applications came from across the world, and the selected cohort reflects that geographical breadth. Participants also came from very different institutional settings: ministries and national agencies, universities and research-performing organisations, funding organisations, and monitoring and evaluation units. That mix is not accidental. Open Science policy is made at every level of the research system, and the challenges look different at each one.

Learning from those who shape the landscape

Across four live days in June, the cohort worked with experts from across the Open Science policy landscape.

Kornelia Tzinova (UNESCO) grounded the programme in the UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science. Volker Beckmann (French Ministry of Higher Education, Research and Space) mapped the multi-level EU policy landscape, from the ERA Policy Agenda to the emerging FP10. Monica Westin (Cambridge University Press, DORA) connected research assessment reform to policy design, and Prodromos Tsiavos (OpenAIRE, Athena RC) unpacked the legal frameworks that so often decide whether a policy works in practice.

Natalia Manola (OpenAIRE) led three sessions, on AI in Open Science, open infrastructure, and policy sustainability. Paolo Manghi (OpenAIRE) took participants through open research information and the shift towards research intelligence. Raffaela Kunz (University of Zurich) addressed research security and risk-based openness. Jessica Catalano (CSIL, PathOS) presented the evidence on what Open Science policies actually change, Joeri Both (VU Amsterdam) on change management and engaging leadership, and Ioanna Grypari (OpenAIRE, Athena RC) on building monitoring frameworks that inform real decisions.

A particular highlight was the case study series. Four practitioners shared what policy-making really looks like from the inside: Pilar Rico-Castro (FECYT) on Spain's National Open Science Strategy, Jiří Marek (Masaryk University) on institutional policy in practice, Bregt Saenen (Science Europe) on the funder perspective, and Paola Galimberti (University of Milan) on monitoring and evaluation on the ground. These sessions gave participants something no framework can: the honest account of what was hard, what was negotiated, and what would be done differently.

Our thanks go to all the experts who took part in the programme and generously shared their knowledge, their know-how, and their practical experience across so many different areas of Open Science policy.

One-to-one expert consultations

Between the two sprints, participants could book individual 30-minute consultations with experts across four thematic areas: policy design, legal aspects, implementation, and monitoring and impact.

This turned out to be one of the most valued elements of the programme. Participants brought their own draft policies, their own institutional constraints, and their own sticking points ,and got targeted advice on them. Not a general answer to a general question, but a specific answer to their situation, at exactly the point in the process where it mattered.

What participants take away

The programme is built on a single principle: everyone leaves with something they can use. Participants are now working on four concrete outputs.

A stakeholder and governance map. Who holds the mandate, who holds the budget, who can block the policy, and who needs to be brought in early.

A policy or monitoring framework skeleton. The structure of the actual policy or for the monitoring and impact track, the indicator framework, drafted for their own institutional or national context.

A leadership pitch. A ready-to-present case for decision-makers, including a SWOT analysis. Because a policy that cannot be explained in ten minutes rarely gets adopted.

A six-month action plan. A realistic set of next steps that turns intent into movement once participants are back at their desks.

Why practical, and not passive

Participants arrive already knowing what Open Science is. What they need is not another overview.

The live sessions were designed so participants spend as much time building as listening. Expert input frames the work; the work itself belongs to the participants. And because the cohort works in parallel tracks but comes together for peer feedback, a national policymaker hears how a funder sees the same problem, and a monitoring specialist hears what institutional leads actually need from indicators. That cross-track perspective is a deliberate design choice, and it consistently produced the sharpest moments of the programme.

Peer learning and peer sharing did something else, too. Senior professionals working on Open Science policy are often the only person doing that job in their organisation. The cohort gave them colleagues.

This is only the start

The live days are over, but the real work is beginning. Participants are now taking their drafts into their own institutions, where the stakeholders are real, the budgets are constrained, and the timelines are political.

They will not be doing it alone. The post-programme support phase brings the cohort back together over the coming months, with follow-up touchpoints including individual implementation sessions and a collective reflection on what worked, what stalled, and what changed.

Our thanks go to the participants, too, for their active contributions throughout the training and for the enthusiasm they bring to advancing Open Science policies at their own institutions.

We are looking forward to seeing these policies take shape and to welcoming the next cohort.