With the increasing popularity of preprints, there are ongoing discussions among the research community about the need to apply peer review to help readers navigate new findings. eLife adopted such an approach in 2023, when we launched our model for publishing. The outputs are Reviewed Preprints, which include the original preprint, public reviews and an eLife Assessment that conveys the significance of the findings and strength of evidence, allowing readers to judge the research based on its own merits rather than where it is published.

Due to our efforts to challenge the status quo in publishing, our indexing status in Web of Science changed last year, meaning eLife no longer receives an Impact Factor. This was followed by concerns that eLife papers would no longer count toward funding or career progression opportunities. We therefore spoke to funders and institutions globally to better understand their position, and reported that 95% of respondents still consider eLife papers when evaluating research contributions. Our conversations highlighted that there is less consideration for the Impact Factor than perceived by the research community, and signalled broad support for more open science practices – showing that it’s time to move away from journal metrics in favour of more transparent and meaningful methods of assessment.

In this session, we will talk more about eLife Assessments, our conversations with the community and why it’s time to embrace innovative approaches to research assessment that better serve science and scientists. We also invite further discussion and participation from the audience.

Designing What Matters: Rethinking Open Science Monitoring Together
How should we measure and reward Open Science in ways that matter to researchers, institutions, and funders? In this 90-minute co-creation workshop, participants will build their own Open Science dashboard using real indicators from PathOS and GraspOS Horizon Projects. Working in groups, you’ll craft visual prototypes, debate what to measure and why, and explore how stories, not just scores, can drive meaningful change in research assessment. Join us to design smarter, fairer ways to track Open Science impact.

This presentation explores a collaborative national network of research data repositories in Poland, where institutional, disciplinary, and generalist infrastructures coexist rather than compete. The model offers a practical example of how interoperability and central coordination can support researchers and institutions in selecting the most appropriate repository type—without duplicating efforts or fragmenting services.

Drawing on a growing ecosystem currently comprising four main repositories (including a generalist platform hosting over 50 institutional dataverses), the presentation demonstrates how this architecture helps address key challenges in the research data landscape:
- ensuring long-term sustainability (technical, operational, and financial),
- alleviating staffing shortages,
- and motivating researchers to share their data.

The model relies on shared infrastructure, harmonized metadata exchange, and cross-repository visibility, enabling researchers to deposit data in the repository best suited to their needs—while benefiting from aggregated institutional presence and increased discoverability.

By presenting this approach, we aim to share insights into a scalable, community-driven strategy that reduces overheads, strengthens national coordination, and enhances the openness of research data practices. By highlighting a collaborative infrastructure model, this presentation contributes to the broader conversation on how we can reimagine openness through shared responsibility, inclusive governance, and sustainable practices.

The initiative of the European Research Area (ERA) aims at creating a unified research and innovation space across Europe. One of the key objectives of ERA is to promote open access to research results and data, thus encouraging transparency, reproducibility, and wider dissemination of knowledge. In order to achieve an alignment with this ERA objective (and others), the European Research Area National Action Plan (ERA-NAP) supports the individual EU member states to contribute to a European Open Science infrastructure.

In this way, national measures for an open science infrastructure are promoted, which ultimately aim to create an open science infrastructure within a European framework. Open Science policies are the means of choice for the creation of such a structure at national level – because only they guarantee the joint endeavour to bundle the interests and needs of all stakeholders.

In my presentation, I outline the goals and challenges of working on such a national Open Science policy using the example of research data management in the Austrian Higher Education Area, which a working group of the Austrian University Conference has addressed, in line with the ERA-NAP. How do different types of universities define research data? What restrictions regarding openness do they wish to reserve for themselves - and for what reasons? Up to what point can a framework policy form a common ground – and at what point should individual standards be applied?

The EU-funded OSTrails project is building a federated Open Science infrastructure by enabling researchers and institutions to discover, plan, track, and assess their work in transparent and interoperable ways. With 41 partners and 25 pilots—including cross-domain, national, and Horizon Europe testbeds—OSTrails is piloting the practical integration of over 80 interoperable tools and services. This diversity reflects the scale needed to support a truly federated Open Science ecosystem.

At the core of the project are two key enablers: a modular Interoperability Reference Architecture and a tool independent Plan-Track-Assess (PTA) framework. Together, these provide a shared foundation for aligning diverse research management services—from Data Management Planning platforms to Scientific Knowledge Graphs and FAIR assessment tools—across distributed infrastructures.

To ensure long-term impact, OSTrails has launched a comprehensive training and capacity-building programme, equipping research communities and service providers with the knowledge and tools to adopt and extend project outcomes. These efforts build on the co-designed pilots, which validate interoperability across varied institutional, disciplinary settings.

For researchers, OSTrails simplifies cross-institutional Research Data Management workflows and clarifies pathways to Open Science best practices. For service providers, it offers a practical model for aligning with EOSC while retaining domain-specific autonomy.

This presentation will showcase how OSTrails contributes to a federated EOSC ecosystem by delivering standards-driven solutions that prioritise interoperability and FAIRness as essential components of a sustainable and inclusive infrastructure, supporting both federation and the development of the Web of FAIR Data and Services.

Open Science in Turbulent Times: Co-Opted or Catalyzed?

Amid political attacks on science in the US, Open Science finds itself championed for unexpected reasons. Is this a co-optation, or a catalyst for global change? Join a provocative panel exploring how shifting power dynamics, funding priorities, and ideologies are reshaping the future of international research, openness, and scientific integrity.

Advancing the quality and impact of science requires a fundamental reimagining of the practices and criteria used to evaluate researchers and their institutions. The Helmholtz Open Science Office supports the cultural shift toward Open Science within the Helmholtz Association, Germany's largest scientific organization. As a signatory of the Coalition on Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA) and coordinator of the CoARA National Chapter Germany, the Helmholtz Open Science Office is involved in several activities that aim to reform research assessment.

This contribution describes key initiatives that are currently taking place within the Helmholtz Association. Together, they aim to broaden the recognition of diverse research activities and output formats as valuable scholarly contributions, in alignment with the principles of research integrity and responsible research evaluation. We present the development of a "Quality Indicator for Data and Software Products”, which is designed to capture quality of research outputs beyond traditional text publications and to promote their visibility. In addition, we present the implementation of an award for sustainable research software and the work of a new Helmholtz Task Group on Research Assessment, which provides a platform for the exchange and development of modern and quality-oriented research assessment practices.

Our contribution situates these activities within broader initiatives in Germany, such as the focus area "Digitality in Science" of the Alliance of German Science Organizations, and describes how they interact with international initiatives like CoARA and the Barcelona Declaration on Open Research Information.

As the open science movement gains momentum, we face a critical paradox: the very frameworks designed to promote transparency and accessibility risk perpetuating the same power imbalances they aim to dismantle. This talk explores the uncomfortable truth about how current monitoring approaches in open science often mirror colonial knowledge production patterns, with the Global North continuing to set standards and metrics for the entire scientific community.
I examine how well-intentioned monitoring frameworks can inadvertently reinforce existing hierarchies in knowledge production. While we generate volumes of "open" research about equity and inclusion, many of these efforts remain tethered to institutions that paradoxically contribute to global inequities. The talk challenges us to move beyond superficial metrics and performative inclusion, advocating instead for a decolonial approach that centres on epistemic justice and acknowledges historical power imbalances in knowledge production.
I propose shifting our focus from quantifying outputs to supporting authentic dialogue about research practices and their broader societal implications. This perspective invites us to critically examine who holds the power to define and measure "openness" in science, and how we might reimagine monitoring frameworks to truly serve the global scientific community.