Skip to main content

Toolkit for policy makers on Open Science and Open Access

Open Science Policy Checklist

for Research Performing Organisations (RPOs)

Is your institution ready to adopt an Open Science Policy?

OpenAIRE has designed the following checklist to enable Research Performing Organisations (RPOs) to assess their readiness in adopting an Open Science Policy. It covers main elements that should be taken into account in designing a policy that is aligned with the Horizon 2020 requirements on open access and the key developments at EU level related to Open Science.

  • The survey comprises 14 statements. For each statement, there are three possible answers (A, B, C). Responses under A indicate higher readiness, therefore the higher the number of as recorded, the readier an institution is.

1. Policy

  1.  My institution already has a policy on Open Science/ Open Access, endorsed by [Rector/other appropriate committee]
  2. My institution is in the process of developing an Open Science/ Open Policy and has already endorsed related declarations (Berlin Declaration, San Francisco Declaration)
  3. My institution does not have an Open Science/ Open Access policy, nor has it endorsed related declarations

2. Roles and Responsibilities

  1.  The institutional policy specifies the roles, rights and responsibilities of each member/ unit/ department or other service within the institution with a role in the adoption and implementation of the policy
  2. There is a rather vague description of the roles and responsibilities of each party involved in the implementation of the policy
  3. There is no description of roles and responsibilities in the policy

3. Open Science Activities

  1. My institution actively encourages the uptake of Open Science practices (beyond open access to publications and data) such as the involvement in
    citizen science projects, the use of open peer review, the use of open educational resources etc., supports researchers through awareness raising
    and information activities and tracks their uptake
  2. My institution encourages the uptake of Open Science practices (beyond open access to publications and data), such as the involvement in citizen science projects, the use of open peer review, the use of open educational resources etc., but does not have a mechanism to monitor their uptake
  3. The policy makes reference only to open access to publications and research data

4. Publications and Sharing

  1.  The policy is aligned with the Horizon2020 requirements in defining the terms of providing open access to publications (mandatory deposit, locus of deposit, time of deposit and embargo periods, licenses and copyright etc.)
  2. The policy defines the terms of providing open access to publications, but these are not aligned with the Horizon2020 requirements
  3. There is no mandatory provision at my institution regarding open access to publications

5. Open Data

  1. My institution has specific provisions (aligned with the Horizon 2020 requirements) stipulating open data by default, establishing reasons for opting-out and laying down provisions for archiving, sharing, long-term preservation etc.
  2. My institution has provisions on open data, but these are not aligned with the Horizon 2020 requirements
  3. There are no mandatory provisions on opening and sharing data in my institution

6. Infrastructure

  1. My institution has a repository for researchers to manage research outputs at different stages of the research cycle that meets trusted quality standards (CoreTrustSeal, OpenAIRE compatibility, meeting FAIR principles)
  2. My institution has a repository, but this does not yet meet trusted quality standards
  3. My institution provides ad hoc support to researchers in locating appropriate services of third parties 

7. Rewards and Incentives

  1.  Open Science constitutes a formal criterion in research assessment and evaluation procedures
  2. My institution encourages the adoption of Open Science practices, yet these are not embedded as a formal criterion in research assessment and evaluation procedures
  3. There is no mechanism for incentivizing or rewarding researchers engaged in Open Science practices

8. Educational Programmes on data-intensive research

  1.  My institution provides courses on data management and data-intensive research, as part of the curriculum and leading to the award of specific titles
  2. My institution provides some training on data management and data-intensive research through ad hoc workshops and other trainings, yet these are not part of the curriculum and do not lead to the award of a specific title
  3. There are no such courses offered in the institution

9. Training

  1.  My institution (university library in cooperation with other departments/units or other appropriate services) organizes on a regular basis training courses of different open science topics, targeting researchers at different stages of their careers, library staff and other members of the institution and taking into consideration disciplinarydifferences
  2. My institution provides open science training courses, yet not a regular basis and of limited scope
  3. My institution does not provide any training courses on open science/ open access, yet provides guidance on training courses offered by OpenAIRE, FOSTER, RDA and other related projects and/or networks

10. Dissemination/ Awareness Raising

  1. My institution has developed materials to familiarize its members with Open Science, operates an information point/ webpage dedicated to Open Science
  2. My institution provides limited information through its library service on general Open Science/ Open Access topics
  3. There is no central information point operating at my institution 

11. Funding

  1.  My institution has a clear estimation of the costs related to Open Science research and activities (developing and maintaining the infrastructure, APC costs, licensing agreement costs, training and awareness raising activities, etc.) and has secured
    appropriate funding
  2. My institution receives ad hoc funding to support Open Science research and activities
  3. There is no specific budget line for Open Science related activities

12. Monitoring and Compliance

  1.  My institution has a set up a mechanism for monitoring compliance of its members with the policy, including sanctions in the case of no compliance
  2. My institution has a monitoring mechanism to accompany the policy, yet there are no actions foreseen in the case of no compliance
  3. There is no monitoring mechanism foreseen in the institutional Open Science/ Open Access policy

13. Revision and Updates

  1.  My institution already has a specific time plan for updating its policy (specifying the time and the people, departments/units or other service involved)
  2. My institution is in the process of developing such plan
  3. There is no provision in the policy for its review

14. Machine-readability of Policy

  1.  The policy is provided in a machine-readable format and can be accessed via API
  2. The institution will shortly provide the policy in a machine-readable format
  3. The policy is not provided in a machine-readable format
Download
DOI
Creative Commons Licence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Toolkit for policy makers

OS Policy Checklist:
for RFOs
for RPOs

Model Policy on OS:
for RFOs
for RPOs

OS Policy Fact sheets:
for RFOs
for RPOs

Related books

Still have questions?

Contact us via our Helpdesk.
We try to respond within 48 hours.