Open science in the Czech Republic needs a stable system, not just temporary projects

Open access to research results and FAIR research data management are gradually becoming an important part of the debate on the quality, transparency, and international competitiveness of science in the Czech research community. However, a new study by the Technology Centre Prague shows that the development of open science in the Czech Republic to date remains heavily dependent on time-limited projects, piecemeal initiatives, and unevenly developed capacities across individual institutions.

The Czech open science system relies on project-based funding

The study Open Science in the Czech Republic: Potential, Barriers, and Directions for Further Development assesses the current state of open science and FAIR research data management in the Czech Republic and identifies the main barriers and opportunities for their further development, particularly with a view to the period after 2028. It is based on a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods, including an analysis of European and national policies, questionnaire surveys among researchers, open science support staff, and representatives of research organization management, interviews with key stakeholders, and a final SWOT analysis.

One of the main findings is that the Czech open science system is in a phase of transition from project-oriented development to the need for stable systemic anchoring. In recent years, a number of important tools, methodologies, support services, and infrastructures have emerged. However, these activities were often funded as time-limited projects, which creates a risk of limited sustainability. If researchers are to meet the requirements for open access, quality data management, and FAIR principles in the long term, they must have access to stable services, clear rules, and expert support.

The capacities of research organizations vary greatly

The uneven readiness of research organizations remains a significant obstacle. While some institutions already have well-developed services, methodological support, and specialized roles—for example, in the area of data stewardship—others address open science more on an ad hoc basis and without sufficient personnel or financial resources.

In practice, this shifts part of the responsibility directly onto researchers, for whom open science may appear as yet another administrative burden rather than a natural part of high-quality research. The study therefore emphasizes the need to strengthen professional support capacities, particularly in the areas of research data management, legal and methodological consulting, and repository services.

Open publishing faces rising costs

Another important area is open access to scientific publications. The study highlights the publishing system’s continued dependence on large commercial publishers, rising publication fees, and the close link between publishing practices and the research evaluation system. The authors therefore recommend more active management of open publishing costs, more transparent tracking of expenditures, strengthening the negotiating position vis-à-vis publishers, and support for alternative open publishing models, including diamond open access—a model with no fees for authors or readers.

The development of open science is also closely linked to research evaluation. The study points out that if the principles of open science are to be truly integrated into research practice, they must also be appropriately reflected in evaluation and incentive mechanisms. However, this does not involve a mechanical assessment of the degree of openness of individual outputs. It is important to monitor whether institutions are creating the conditions for responsible openness: accessible support, infrastructure, expert capacity, legal and security frameworks, and appropriate training. For research data, software, and other outputs, the emphasis should be primarily on quality management, documentation, transparency, and the possibility of verification or reuse where factually and legally possible.

“As open as possible, as closed as necessary”

The study also notes that open science does not mean the unconditional publication of all outputs and data. The key principle is “as open as possible, as closed as necessary”—that is, as open as possible, while taking into account legal, ethical, security, or other legitimate constraints. Responsible openness therefore requires clearer methodological, legal, and security guidance so that researchers and institutions can make informed decisions about what can be shared, under what conditions, and in what manner.

After 2028, systemic anchoring will be decisive

According to the study, the following will be crucial for the further development of open science in the Czech Republic: the preparation of a national strategy for the period after 2028, the introduction of stable, multi-year funding for key services, the definition of a minimum institutional standard for support, the development of a federated and interoperable ecosystem of infrastructures, and better integration of open science with research evaluation. The goal is not to add more administrative burdens to researchers, but to create an environment in which open access, FAIR data management, and responsible sharing of research outputs are a normal and functional part of scientific work.

The study, including all appendices, is available in the Zenodo repository.