For the open science programme, the university must ‘open its gates’
The idea that science must come down from its ivory tower is nothing new. It requires a significant cultural shift and that takes time, say researcher Bert Bakker and University Library Director Carlos Reijnen, the driving forces behind the open science programme at the UvA. With new objectives they aim to accelerate this process.
For a long time, science was accessible mainly to the elite, and even the exchange of knowledge within the academic community remained limited. Articles were published exclusively in subscription-based journals, and research data lay gathering dust on researchers’ hard drives. Open science was intended to change this years ago and make science accessible to everyone.
It all began with open access, meaning to make scientific publications publicly available. Open science extends that vision of openness to all facets of science. The wider public is involved in the entire research process through citizen science and the accessibility of knowledge.
That process is moving very slowly, say UvA communication scientist Bert Bakker and University Library director Carlos Reijnen. With the open science programme launched at the end of March this year, they hope to give this a bit more momentum. Over the next four years, this programme aims to ensure that science becomes accessible to everyone and that research data can be easily shared.
““Why hasn’t this been the case for a long time?” my students rightly asked,” says Bakker. “We have habits that need to change. A real cultural shift is needed, and that is always difficult. A large ship doesn’t turn 180 degrees in one go either.”
In recent years, steps have been taken in the “right direction”, including publishing scientific articles as widely as possible via open access. In the Netherlands, 92 per cent of articles were published open access in 2025, as Folia previously reported. But we are not yet where we should be. In a world that still revolves primarily around commercial publishers, there is a hefty price tag (think thousands of euros per article) attached to publishing articles outside the paywall. And publishing in a different way can be career-damaging. Bakker: “With smaller journals, you still run the risk of barely being noticed. I still advise my PhD students to go for journals with a certain reputation.”
The idea that anyone can become part of the academic world is a noble goal. But does it also benefit science itself?
Bakker: “Yes, open science actually improves science even further. Reproducibility – the ability to achieve the same results with a new study – is, for example, very important. This is enhanced by open science because others can verify the work and build upon it.”
Reijnen: “As a university, we have to be a bit more transparent. You produce better research if you make the source material accessible; you can rely on each other much more by making use of each other’s work. This applies not only to our immediate surroundings, but to the whole world. With open science, more information becomes accessible globally. If information and knowledge become available in multiple locations around the world, this will have an impact on the insights produced by science and their quality. We can build on each other’s work more quickly and effectively. Furthermore, through citizen science, it is possible to answer research questions on a scale that would be unfeasible with just a small group of researchers. There is still much to be gained in terms of research transparency, which will only improve its quality.”
Bakker: “Take complex datasets, for example in the social sciences, which may relate to hard-to-reach communities. Once a project is completed, the data is often left unused, even though it is frequently still useful for other studies. A subsequent project often simply starts from scratch.”
A new open science programme has been launched. What is different now?
Bakker: “The transition has been underway for some time, but it won’t happen overnight. With the new programme, we want to move towards a more open model of science. You could use the excuse that the academic ecosystem is simply the way it is, but that’s too easy. When it comes to the accessibility of the knowledge we generate, we must take significant steps ourselves.”
Reijnen: “The previous programme focused mainly on open access and open data. Now we want to focus on sustainable publication models, citizen science and fostering a greater appreciation of open science. On the one hand, we want to be able to facilitate better knowledge and infrastructure, such as open access publishing or systems for archiving and sharing data. On the other hand, we really want to steer things in a different direction – a bit of a cultural shift. Transparency must become the norm. We are trying to position ourselves at the heart of the scientific discourse by engaging with academics. We are unique in Amsterdam in this respect, because both Bert and I are scientists ourselves, so the barrier to entry is lower. To bring about a cultural shift in science, science itself must take the lead.”
What should that more open model look like, then?
Bakker: “A good example is the Diamond Open Access fund, which encourages researchers to set up journals or publication platforms free of charge. It’s not an inexhaustible resource, but it is useful. Ultimately, the aim is for everyone to be able to publish at any time without incurring extra costs.”
Reijnen: “The UvA is currently striking deals with publishers to enable open access publishing. But that is costly and really only worthwhile if you publish a lot. Ultimately, we will also need to explore ways of working less with publishers – or perhaps not at all – and taking the process into our own hands. But that costs money too. You need people to monitor quality and manage the publications.”
Reijnen: “We also want to be able to archive and share our datasets and research. The Research Data Hub is a great solution for this, as it brings all that together. Through the Hub, you can store research data securely and it is also searchable. You can choose for yourself whether to make it public or not. That programme is a huge innovation. Initiatives like this make us less reliant on commercial solutions.”
How is the open science programme funded?
Reijnen: “The idea behind the programme is that we make use of existing budgets. Open science is not extra or special science, but simply how mainstream science should be in this day and age. If this were to cost extra funds, we’d be doing it wrong.”
Bakker: “We are investing fifty thousand euros in the Diamond Open Access fund and ten thousand euros to stimulate open science in the initial phase.”
You say that a cultural shift is needed. What does that look like?
Bakker: “You have to recognise that there are a great many differences within the UvA; there isn’t just one culture, so there can’t be just one change either. We need to establish openness and transparency regarding the research process as the new norm. The research we conduct must not only have an impact on society, but we must genuinely start working together. This applies not only to scientists themselves, but also to citizens, businesses and journalists.”
Reijnen: “Science must open its doors. Scientists must undergo a change in behaviour. Every form of culture is ingrained in how we also deal with material matters. Nowadays, publications are commercial processes. The fact that you can express the value of an article in euros has become a major driving force in science. For publishers, open access is, of course, problematic.”
Bakker: “We need to learn to value transparent science more. The UvA’s Recognise and Value programme is committed to this. It is important that we start to value different types of output rather than attaching value solely to publications in leading journals. That is not bad output, but certainly not the only kind.”
