Transitioning to Open Infrastructures for Responsible Research Assessment: Barriers, Enablers, and Strategic Recommendations

Transitioning to Open Infrastructures for Responsible Research Assessment: Barriers, Enablers, and Strategic Recommendations 20 OCTOBER 2025 COARA WORKING GROUP - TOWARDS OPEN INFRASTRUCTURES FOR RESPONSIBLE RESEARCH ASSESSMENT (OI4RRA) 20/10/2025 Transitioning to Open Infrastructures for Responsible Research Assessment: Barriers, Enablers, and Strategic Recommendations Table of Contents Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................... 1 List of Acronyms ....................................................................................................................... 4 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. 5 1. TRANSITION TO OPEN INFRASTRUCTURES FOR RESPONSIBLE RESEARCH ASSESSMENT: WHERE DO WE STAND?.............................................................................. 6 2. BARRIERS ........................................................................................................................... 9 2.1 Lack of Financial and Human Resources ....................................................................... 9 2.2 Policy Shortfalls ................................................................................................................ 9 2.3 Ranking Culture, Traditional Metrics, and Limited Awareness and Trust in Open Infrastructures ....................................................................................................................... 10 2.4 Lack of IT Support and Computational Issues ............................................................ 10 2.5 Lack of National Platforms ............................................................................................ 11 2.6 Resistance to Change and the Need for a New Mindset .......................................... 11 2.7 Technical Fragmentation, Interoperability and Trust in Data Quality ...................... 11 2.8 Inadequate Capacity Developement .......................................................................... 12 2.9 Differences Among Disciplines .................................................................................... 12 2.10 Researchers’ Concerns About Career Impact and Lack of Confidence ................ 12 3. ENABLERS ........................................................................................................................ 13 3.1 Clear National Policies, Coordination and Institutional Alignment ......................... 13 3.2 Resource Reallocation and Capacity Building ............................................................ 13 3.3 Democratisation of Science and Researcher Engagement ...................................... 14 3.4 Building Trust Through Data Stewardship Practices ................................................. 14 3.5 Integrating Openness in Promotion Criteria, Research Assessment and Evaluation ................................................................................................................................................ 15 3.6 Federated and Ethical Governance ............................................................................. 15 3.7 Supporting Multilingualism, Diversity and Pluralism in Research ............................ 16 4. RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION ROADMAP ................................ 16 4.1 Human Capital: Skills, Knowledge, and Capacity Developement ........................... 16 4.2 Human Resources: Personnel, Roles, and Institutional Support .............................. 17 4.3 Financial Capacities: Funding Open Infrastructures Sustainably ............................. 17 4.4 Policy alignment: Enhancing International, National and Institutional Coordination ................................................................................................................................................ 18 Transitioning to Open Infrastructures for Responsible Research Assessment: Barriers, Enablers, and Strategic Recommendations 4.5 Embedding Open Science, Open Infrastructure and RRA in Career Incentives .... 19 4.6 Strengthening Ethical and Federated Governance of Open Infrastructures .......... 19 5. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 20 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .......................................................................................................... 22 ANNEX: METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................... 23 Transitioning to Open Infrastructures for Responsible Research Assessment: Barriers, Enablers, and Strategic Recommendations Please cite as: Kuchma, I.; Tzouganatou, A.; CoARA OI4RRA WG (2025). CoARA Output. Transitioning to Open Infrastructures for Responsible Research Assessment: Barriers, Enablers, and Strategic Recommendations. 10.5281/zenodo.17399516 Document Information Output Title Transitioning to Open Infrastructures for Responsible Research Assessment: Barriers, Enablers, and Strategic Recommendations Working Group CoARA Working Group - Towards Open Infrastructures for Responsible Research Assessment (OI4RRA) Topic Open Infrastructures and Responsible Research Assessment Draft Version 1.0 Publication Date 20/10/2025 Output Type Report Producer(s) Iryna Kuchma, Angeliki Tzouganatou and the CoARA OI4RRA WG Project Leader(s) Natalia Manola and Clifford Tatum Editor(s) Angeliki Tzouganatou Reviewer(s) Ludo Waltman Other contributors Status Final Revision history Version Date Revised by Comments 1 20/10/2025 Transitioning to Open Infrastructures for Responsible Research Assessment: Barriers, Enablers, and Strategic Recommendations List of Acronyms CARE The CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance – Collective Benefit, Authority to Control, Responsibility, and Ethics CoARA Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment CRIS Current Research Information System DORI Barcelona Declaration on Open Research Information EOSC European Open Science Cloud HAL Hyper Articles en Ligne / Online Hyper Articles OIs Open Infrastructure OpenAIRE Open Access Infrastructure for Research in Europe OS Open Science OI4RRA Open Infrastructures for Responsible Research Assessment, CoARA Working Group “Towards Open Infrastructures for Responsible Research Assessment” PID Persistent Identifier RRA Responsible Research Assessment SSH Social Sciences and Humanities STEM Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics WG Working Group WoS Web of Science Transitioning to Open Infrastructures for Responsible Research Assessment: Barriers, Enablers, and Strategic Recommendations Executive Summary This report from the Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA) Working Group “Towards Open Infrastructures for Responsible Research Assessment,” discusses how equitable, transparent, community-driven data platforms might replace or complement conventional, commercial proprietary bibliographic database such as Web of Science (WoS) or Scopus. It draws on interviews with 17 stakeholders across 11 countries in Europe, Africa and Asia Pacific (Australia, Croatia, France, Japan, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Kenya, the Netherlands, Romania and Slovenia). The scope of this report traverses technical infrastructure, cultural norms, financial resources, and governance models that shape the transition to Open Infrastructures (OIs) in Responsible Research Assessment (RRA). Barriers, including limited resources, entrenched reliance on global rankings, minimal policy anchors, and mistrust of open data, curtail widespread adoption. Yet, local and national initiatives, such as Sorbonne University’s reallocation of subscription budgets for librarianled data curation, robust policy frameworks such as France’s National Plan for Open Science (OS), OS legislation and infrastructures in Slovenia, Ireland’s development of an Open Access Monitor, Open Science NL in the Netherlands and pilot initiatives in Italy encounter the inertia of traditions bibliometric systems and demonstrate how effective policy direction, capacity building and community engagement can mitigate these hurdles, fostering equitable and transparent responsible research assessment that emphasizes data sovereignty, contextualized metrics, and inclusive participation. This report also presents a set of practical and actionable recommendations to support the transition to OIs for RRA, which would lead to more sustainable, scalable, equitable and community driven research assessment frameworks. While the primary focus of this report is on OIs that enable RRA, it is important to acknowledge that RRA inherently encompasses dimensions of OS. Principles such as transparency, accessibility, and reproducibility form the foundation of both agendas, and open infrastructures provide the mechanisms through which these principles are effectively implemented and maintained. To effectively address existing barriers and leverage these enablers, this report proposes several actionable recommendations. First, institutions should strategically redirect funding from subscription-based citation databases toward sustainable OIs, repository management, and librarian training programmes. Second, establishing permanent, dedicated roles such as OS Coordinators and Metadata Curators is crucial for building institutional capacity and expertise. Third, comprehensive national and institutional policies should be developed and harmonized across funding agencies, universities, and governmental bodies to consistently recognize open research contributions within academic evaluations, thus shifting career incentives toward open practices. Fourth, awareness campaigns and targeted training should be systematically embedded within graduate curricula, early-career programs, and continuous professional development initiatives to foster cultural acceptance and understanding of OIs benefits. Transitioning to Open Infrastructures for Responsible Research Assessment: Barriers, Enablers, and Strategic Recommendations 1. TRANSITION TO OPEN INFRASTRUCTURES FOR RESPONSIBLE RESEARCH ASSESSMENT: WHERE DO WE STAND? This report complements the OI4RRA publication Open Infrastructures for Responsible Research Assessment: Principles and Framework, by providing empirical evidence on how the principles discussed in this earlier publication are being interpreted and implemented in practice, identifying the key barriers, enablers, and strategic actions that support their uptake. There are also synergies with the OI4RRA publication Conceptual Architecture for the Implementation of a Responsible Research Assessment Framework Built on Open Infrastructures and the accompanying Policy Briefs: Transitioning from Closed Proprietary Systems to Open Infrastructures for Responsible Research Assessment, which translate the framework into a reference model and actionable guidance for research-performing and research-funding organisations. Together, these contributions form a coherent and evolving body of work advancing the transition toward open, transparent, and communitygoverned infrastructures for RRA. In several contexts, the transition to OIs for RRA remains at an early or highly fragmented stage. For example, in many African countries National and Regional Research and Education Networks (NRENs and RENs) and library consortia drive OIs adoption, yet most universities still cling to traditional citation-based metrics, partly due to limited resources for OIs development and minimal policy guidance. Japan has been developing an Open Science Monitoring system, inspired by the French model, but the absence of a cohesive national policy for RRA continues the dependency of many institutions on Scopus and Web of Science (WoS) data. Kyoto University stands out with open research assessment and evaluation pilots, but the landscape is slowed by fragmented discipline and faculty-level politics and reliance on commercial databases. Similarly in Australia, as Cameron Neylon (Professor of Research Communication at Curtin University’s Centre for Culture and Technology) notes, “Most institutional evaluation has traditionally depended on the national approach-with WoS and Scopus data and strongly quantitative, citation-based methodologies, at least in the natural sciences.” He also observes that institutional implementations of the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), recommendations from the International Network of Research Management Societies (INORMS), or More Than Our Rank focus more on “the methodological part of research assessment” rather than on fully embracing open data. “The government has been working through a major shift in national evaluation systems, which has been a slow process. This is quite top-down,...the research community is conservative, and waiting for direction” Neylon explains. He adds: “There’s quite a lot of open data, but the support systems themselves aren’t necessarily open,” capturing the disconnect between partial data availability and genuine OIs. Despite a significant research budget, “coordination remains fragmented… we need models for funding to work together,” he says, noting “The European Union is leading the way” in many respects. Transitioning to Open Infrastructures for Responsible Research Assessment: Barriers, Enablers, and Strategic Recommendations National level initiatives are ongoing in Romania, where open science is a strategic priority for national research and innovation and national platforms are being built, such as BrainMap online community of researchers, innovators, technicians and entrepreneurs and EERTIS Research and Technology infrastructures platform, though OIs-level synergy still remains incomplete. Policy efforts are co-created with research communities, suggesting a more inclusive approach for OIs expansions and further incentives development. Many institutions in Hungary engage in CoARA, but there is no national strategy yet. The MTMT: The Hungarian Scientific Bibliography Current Research Information System (CRIS) with diverse research outputs is used in research assessment, but resources for its open expansions are lacking (e.g. for introducing credits for peer review and acknowledging contributors using existing CRediT taxonomies). Many local staff remain unaware of the costs or viability of OIs, sustaining a reliance on traditional bibliometric norms. Croatia also demonstrates some progress, with a national CRIS incorporating some open features but research assessment is still dominated by conventional indicators. There is a vision that OIs will be used in RRA, but a robust policy framework is still lacking. Most universities in Ireland have joined CoARA, and the National Open Research Forum (NORF) invested in developing the National Open Access Monitor of Ireland (oamonitor.ireland.openaire.eu) in collaboration with OpenAIRE. The Monitor began as a tender awarded to OpenAIRE in 2023, and following a successful first year, the contract has been extended, marking 2025 as the second year of operation and continued collaboration between OpenAIRE and the Irish Research e-Library (IReL). Susan Reilly (The Irish Research e-Library Director) explains, ‘’The challenge is that universities are very traditional in terms of how they compete on a global level, which stimulates the culture of quantity over quality. There’s a lack of real incentives to do otherwise.” She notes that “awareness, training, and a change of mindset is what is needed,” pointing to the tension between short-term ranking priorities and the OIs or library capacities required for open data curation. “National-level financial support is almost like a seal of approval,” Reilly observes, but so far the OIs readiness and partial adoption hamper system-wide acceptance. Slovenia demonstrates strong policy anchors and leadership by legislating open science indicators for research assessment, weaving open science metrics into RRA frameworks, though institutions still need to comply with national quantitative standards as well. Researchers remain cautious but see a relatively well structured environment for adopting new approaches to research assessment. OpenCitations and local efforts in Italy at the University of Bologna (UniBo) drive the change, but “commercial infrastructures have massive investments and established trust, whereas open infrastructures must prove not just data quality but transparency in curation processes,” says Silvio Peroni (Associate Professor Department of Classical Philology and Italian Studies), noting that open solutions require “a different mindset.” UniBo invests in the Institutional Research Assessment System IRIS and open data, but national reliance on Scopus and WoS persists. Achieving a thorough transition depends on wider use of OIs and strong policy directives to unify local coverage and data curation in OIs. Transitioning to Open Infrastructures for Responsible Research Assessment: Barriers, Enablers, and Strategic Recommendations France exemplifies cohesive national policies (National Plan for Open Science) integrated with local impetus. Sorbonne University (SU) took a strategic decision to use HAL-SU (national repository) as a monitoring tool, cancelled WoS subscription and rerouted some budget to librarian training for early metadata stewardship and OpenAlex for community curation support. Anne-Catherine Fritzinger (Deputy Executive Director of SU, responsible for knowledge dissemination and public engagement and Open Science Advisor to the President of SU) emphasizes, “It’s not so much a financial question, but a political will.” Meanwhile, the synergy with CoARA and Barcelona Declaration on Open Research Information (DORI) cements an institutional push toward open data sovereignty. As of next year, SU will no longer submit data to the Times Higher Education (THE) World University Rankings choosing open and transparent databases to assess its academic performance. 1 The Netherlands demonstrates advanced policy engagement but retains ties with commercial infrastructures. CWTS, co-initiator of the Barcelona DORI, focuses on “democratizing open infrastructures,” bridging OIs complexities and capacity building. “Computational problems are often overlooked. Open is not enough, open infrastructures should be available to people,” remarks Rodrigo Costas (Senior researcher at the Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS) at Leiden University), underscoring OI’s readiness and user engagement. TU Delft tests narrative CVs, while Utrecht University left THE World University Rankings and will also discontinue its WoS subscription as of next year. These varied national and institutional experiences, from France’s HAL-driven shift and Slovenia’s legislated openness and Japan’s monitoring pilots, reveal a consistent pattern: while leadership and innovation exist, most systems remain tethered to proprietary bibliographic databases and fragmented policies. To transform these isolated successes into a sustained, systemic shift, every stakeholder should take decisive, coordinated action. It has been demonstrated that OIs can underpin more equitable, transparent research assessment. Yet, without cohesive investment across six interdependent domains, namely human capital, human resources, financial capacities, policy alignment, career incentives, and inclusive ethical governance, these innovative initiatives risk remaining isolated experiments rather than sparking a system-wide transformation. These findings draw on qualitative evidence collected through 13 semi-structured interviews with 17 experts from 11 countries, representing diverse policy, institutional, and technical perspectives on open infrastructures and responsible research assessment. The methodological design underpinning this study, including interview structure, participant selection, and coding approach, is described in detail in the Annex (Methodology). 1 Sorbonne University decides to withdraw from the Times Higher Education (THE) World University Rankings | Sorbonne Université| Sorbonne université Transitioning to Open Infrastructures for Responsible Research Assessment: Barriers, Enablers, and Strategic Recommendations Openness, trusted and transparent provenance of metadata and related algorithms, enduring access and availability, open standards and interoperability, open collaborations and academic sovereignty through governance listed as ‘Seven Guiding Principles for Open Research Information” 3 by the Dutch Taskforce on Responsible Management of Research Information and Data (established by the Association of Universities in the Netherlands (UNL), The Netherlands Federation of University Medical Centres (NFU) and The Dutch Research Council (NWO)) are among the key enablers of transitioning towards OIs for RRA. 3.5 Integrating Openness in Promotion Criteria, Research Assessment and Evaluation Embedding open research contributions into faculty promotion, tenure, and funding evaluation criteria is critical for incentivizing participation in OIs. Academic assessment structures that continue to prioritize citation-based impact metrics discourage researchers from engaging with open repositories and emerging evaluation frameworks. Universities that mandate repository deposits and recognize preprints, research data sharing, open software availability, new types of impact metrics within hiring and promotion frameworks report higher faculty engagement with open research assessment models. Aligning career incentives with open infrastructure participation shifts institutional culture, ensuring that researchers see value in contributing to transparent, community-driven research assessment frameworks. 3.6 Federated and Ethical Governance Federated governance models, where multiple institutions collaborate in managing shared infrastructures, provide a sustainable model for scaling OIs for RRA. Cross-institutional collaborations reduce costs, enhance data interoperability, and create unified assessment frameworks that are more widely recognized and adopted. To ensure long-term trust in OIs, institutions must prioritize ethical engagement and governance structures that respect data sovereignty, disciplinary differences, and privacy protections. Open research frameworks that integrate privacy laws, ethical review processes, and transparency in data usage enhance institutional trust and compliance with regulatory requirements. Establishing ethical national and international governance frameworks for OIs ensures equitable access, interoperability, and sustained adoption across diverse research communities. Interviewees emphasize data governance and sovereignty balancing privacy with openness. For example, SU combines “openness… with knowledge security,” maintaining local oversight to avoid vendor lock-in. 3 Bijsterbosch, M., Dunning, A., Jansen, D., Haring, M., de Rijcke, S., & Vanderfeesten, M. (2022). Seven Guiding Principles for Open Research Information (Version 1). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6074944 Transitioning to Open Infrastructures for Responsible Research Assessment: Barriers, Enablers, and Strategic Recommendations 3.7 Supporting Multilingualism, Diversity and Pluralism in Research While commercial databases (e.g. Scopus and WoS) mainly cover internationally visible research in the English language, OIs built on Diamond OA journals, repositories and CRIS include multilingual research and have good coverage of research results in humanities and social sciences (which are much more diverse than journal articles). Ensuring visibility of local research in local languages aligns well with national priorities in many countries and serves as an enabler of developing OIs for RRA. Diversity and inclusion require multiple information sources: “Linguistic, institutional, local or regional research agendas and representation biases can be more effectively mitigated by ensuring the use of multiple sources that expand the thematic, geographical and linguistic scope of research information. The multiplicity of sources provides not only richer data but also broadens the cultural perspectives, thus supporting pluralism.” 4 All interviewees engage cross-border to align their technology solutions and governance frameworks where relevant. Technology-driven alliances, interoperability and standardization help align open infrastructure extensions, reduce vendor entrenchment, and allow advanced computing analytics to drive coverage parity or improvement. EU developments played a significant role in many countries facilitating the transition towards OIs for RRA. Collaborative funding schemes beyond national borders would also help ensure the smooth transition. 4. RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION ROADMAP Building on the identified enablers, this section presents a set of practical and actionable recommendations for Research Funding and Research Performing Organisations, to support the transition to OIs for RRA. The focus is on enhancing policy coordination, financial investments, human capital development, and cross-institutional collaboration to create sustainable, scalable, and equitable research assessment frameworks. 4.1 Human Capital: Skills, Knowledge, and Capacity Developement A well-trained workforce with expertise in OIs and RRA is essential for advancing research assessment reform. Institutions need skilled personnel, specialized training, and structured capacity-building programmes to ensure that OIs are managed effectively and deliver results needed for RRA. However, many institutions lack personnel with the technical knowledge required to curate metadata, manage and use bibliometric data responsively and ensure interoperability of OIs (e.g. repositories, CRIS, etc.). Actionable Steps: 4 Babini, D., Becerril Garcia, A., Costas, R., Matas, L., Rafols, I., Rovelli, L. (2024). Not only Open, but also Diverse and Inclusive: Towards Decentralised and Federated Research Information Sources https://www.leidenmadtrics.nl/articles/not-only-open-but-also-diverse-and-inclusive-towardsdecentralised-and-federated-research-information-sources Transitioning to Open Infrastructures for Responsible Research Assessment: Barriers, Enablers, and Strategic Recommendations • Develop Specialized Training in Responsible Research Metrics and Data Stewardship: Research Performing Organisations should provide programmes for students, faculty, librarians and research managers on how to use metrics appropriately and why PIDs are important and how to use them. • Launch Awareness Campaigns to Shift Research Culture: Research Performing Organisations should run awareness campaigns, discipline-specific workshops, and online training modules to increase understanding and adoption of OIs for RRA and build trust in them. 4.2 Human Resources: Personnel, Roles, and Institutional Support Institutions need dedicated personnel to maintain OIs effectively. The lack of positions dedicated to OS, data management, and research assessment remains a major barrier. Actionable Steps: • Consider Permanent Positions in Open Science, Repository Management and Ιnstitutional Data Curation, as well as support offices for Research Assessment: RPOs should establish long-term positions such as Open Science Coordinators, Research Data Managers, and Institutional Repository Specialists, as well as Scholarly Communication Departments to support researchers. Transparent data curation will help to ensure data accuracy, completeness, and long-term preservation of research information. • Develop Cross-Functional Teams for Open Infrastructure Development: Institutions should create interdisciplinary teams composed of librarians, IT staff, researchers, research managers and policy officers to streamline the integration of OIs in RRA. • Retain Skilled Personnel through Incentives and Career Pathways: Universities should establish career advancement programs for professionals in open science and RRA, offering competitive salaries, long-term contracts, and research development opportunities. • Implement Institutional Recognition for Open Infrastructure Competencies: Research Performing Organisations should create formal incentives, such as awards and career progression pathways, for faculty and administrators who contribute to building and sustaining OIs for RRA. 4.3 Financial Capacities: Funding Open Infrastructures Sustainably Stable financial investment is required to sustain repository development, metadata curation, and interoperability initiatives. Institutions should secure multi-year funding commitments to ensure OIs remain viable alternatives to proprietary databases. Many Research Performing Organisations spend significant resources on proprietary citation databases such as Scopus and Web of Science. A reallocation strategy is needed to support the development of self-sustaining, locally controlled OIs. Actionable Steps: Transitioning to Open Infrastructures for Responsible Research Assessment: Barriers, Enablers, and Strategic Recommendations • Establish Long-Term Funding Programmes for Open Infrastructures: Research Funding and Research Performing Organisations should develop multi-year funding programmes for repository/CRIS development, metadata curation, and interoperability initiatives. Such programmes could be national, regional and international. • Minimize Dependency on Commercial Bibliographic Databases: Research Funding and Research Performing Organisations should work toward minimizing their dependency on proprietary platforms and support repositories, open citation indexes, federated research networks and other types of research infrastructures for RRA. • Reallocate Budgets from Proprietary Databases to Open Infrastructure: Research Funding and Research Performing Organisations should redirect funds from commercial bibliographic databases toward OIs for RRA and awareness raising programmes. • Implement and Integrate Open Infrastructure Solutions: Research Funding and Research Performing Organisations should prioritize community-led open platforms such as OpenAlex, OpenAIRE, OpenCitation and DataCite to reduce dependence on commercial alternatives and ensure control over research data. • Develop Cost-Sharing Models Across Research Funding and Research Performing Organisations for Open Infrastructure Maintenance: Research Funding and Research Performing OrganisationsI should implement collaborative funding mechanisms to maintain shared repository/CRIS services and other types of OIs for RRA. 4.4 Policy alignment: Enhancing International, National and Institutional Coordination International, national and institutional coordination is essential for ensuring the successful adoption of OIs for RRA. Countries and regions with clear policy frameworks and government support exhibit higher compliance and alignment with open research practices. Actionable Steps: • Develop National Coordination Bodies for Open Science policies and infrastructures alignment: Countries should establish national coordinating structures to align open science policies and infrastructure developments across institutions and funders. • Mandate Open Infrastructure in National Research Assessment Frameworks and introduce aligned RRA policies: Research Funding and Research Performing Organisations should require the use of open repositories/CRIS, persistent identifiers (DOIs, ORCIDs), and align their RRA policies. • Support National and Regional Open Repository Networks: Research Funding and Research Performing Organisations should support national open repository Transitioning to Open Infrastructures for Responsible Research Assessment: Barriers, Enablers, and Strategic Recommendations networks to improve interoperability of data and visibility of research results. Regional and international collaborations of repositories should also be supported. 4.5 Embedding Open Science, Open Infrastructure and RRA in Career Incentives To drive cultural change and implement CoARA commitment to recognize diversity of research contributions, Research Funding and Research Performing Organisations should recognize contributions to OS and RRA in career progression, funding allocations, and research evaluation. Actionable Steps: • Incorporate Open Science Contributions and RRA in Promotion and Tenure Policies: Research Performing Organisations should update research assessment and promotion criteria to include open repository deposits, preprints, open peer review participation, research data and software sharing and other relevant types of open science practices. • Align Institutional and National Policies with International RRA Guidelines: Research Funding and Research Performing Organisations should adopt policies aligned with DORA (Declaration on Research Assessment), CoARA (Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment), and the Barcelona Declaration on Open Research Information. 4.6 Strengthening Ethical and Federated Governance of Open Infrastructures To maintain integrity, inclusivity, and long-term sustainability, OIs must operate under strong ethical and federated governance models. Actionable Steps: • Establish Community Governance Boards for Open Infrastructures: Research Funding and Research Performing Organisations should create multi-stakeholder advisory boards composed of researchers, funders, librarians, and policymakers to oversee open infrastructure governance. • Collaborate to Align Open Metrics: Research Funding and Research Performing Organisations should collaborate globally to co-develop responsible and ethical open metrics for research assessment. • Implement Transparency and Accountability Mechanisms: OIs should establish public governance reports, voting mechanisms for key decisions, and annual community review processes to ensure ethical oversight. • Ensure Compliance with International Open Science Frameworks: OIs must align with UNESCO Open Science Guidelines, POSI, EOSC (European Open Science Cloud), CARE and the Barcelona Declaration on Open Research Information. By implementing these practical and actionable policy levers, Research Funding and Research Performing Organisations can drive the global shift toward responsible, open, and equitable research assessment. Transitioning to Open Infrastructures for Responsible Research Assessment: Barriers, Enablers, and Strategic Recommendations 5. CONCLUSION Establishing transparent and equitable OIs for RRA demands coordinated and sustained action to overcome persistent barriers and capitalize on critical enablers identified in this report. Despite growing global awareness of the benefits of transitioning from traditional bibliographic databases like WoS and Scopus to open, community-driven platforms, numerous barriers continue to hinder broader adoption. These include persistent resource constraints, especially inadequate funding for infrastructure and the lack of specialized staff trained in repository management and data curation. The entrenched reliance on global rankings, coupled with minimal national policy guidance, perpetuates institutional dependence on traditional metrics, creating significant inertia against change. Furthermore, widespread misconceptions, mistrust, and technical fragmentation diminish stakeholder confidence in open data infrastructures, exacerbating resistance rooted in concerns about career implications and research visibility. Despite these barriers, the report identifies several powerful enablers that have successfully facilitated partial or advanced transitions in various regions. Structured national policy frameworks, such as France’s National Plan for Open Science, have proven instrumental in providing clear direction, mandating open practices, and reallocating financial resources away from proprietary systems toward open infrastructure and librarian capacity-building. Successful local initiatives, exemplified by Sorbonne University’s decision to repurpose WoS subscription budgets to empower librarians in metadata curation (i.e., checking and improving metadata accuracy at the time of deposit), underline the critical role of institutional commitment and political will. Likewise, community-driven initiatives, such as Ireland’s NORF and Italy’s OpenCitations, demonstrate the importance of engaging stakeholders through co-created governance models and ensuring transparency in data stewardship processes. Cultural change is pivotal in overcoming entrenched resistance to emerging assessment practices. It involves reshaping perceptions around research quality, shifting the emphasis from traditional publication and citation metrics to recognizing broader and more diverse contributions to scholarly communication. This cultural shift is also a precondition for the meaningful adoption of OIs for RRA, since these infrastructures operationalize openness, inclusivity, and transparency in practice. Institutions must therefore proactively address researcher concerns through transparent communication about the reliability, credibility, and career advantages associated with open systems and by demonstrating how engagement with OIs can enhance research visibility, integrity and career recognition. Building such, combined with meaningful incentives for participation, is essential for achieving and sustaining lasting cultural transformation. Furthermore, it is essential to build trust in OIs by ensuring rigorous data quality standards, implementing transparent, federated governance structures, and clearly communicating reliability and coverage advantages to researchers. International collaboration should be strengthened to harmonize open metrics standards, address discipline-specific needs, and support interoperability across national and regional platforms. RFOs and RPOs should Transitioning to Open Infrastructures for Responsible Research Assessment: Barriers, Enablers, and Strategic Recommendations collaborate at national and international levels to create integrated open repository networks and unified assessment guidelines aligned with global standards. Looking forward, sustained engagement from all stakeholders, ongoing investment in technical and human resource capacities, and continued alignment of policy incentives will be crucial. Future developments should focus on expanding successful pilot projects, refining ethical governance models, and enhancing cross-border collaborations to ensure OIs become the global standard for RRA. By addressing resource gaps, overcoming entrenched bibliometric biases, and establishing transparent and ethical governance frameworks, stakeholders, including policy makers, research managers, librarians, and researchers, can collectively transform research assessment practices, promoting equity, openness, and responsible scholarship globally. Transitioning to Open Infrastructures for Responsible Research Assessment: Barriers, Enablers, and Strategic Recommendations ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would like to express their sincere gratitude to all interview participants for their time, insights, and invaluable contributions to this study. Their perspectives have been instrumental in identifying the barriers, enablers, and strategic actions shaping the transition toward open, transparent, and community-governed infrastructures fit for RRA. The following individuals, listed in alphabetical order, generously shared their experiences and expertise: Jeroen Bosman (Utrecht University); Amélie Church, Anne-Catherine Fritzinger, and Bernold Hasenknopf (Sorbonne University); Rodrigo Costas Comesaña (CWTS, Leiden University); Alastair Dunning (TU Delft); András Holl (Library and Information Centre of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences); Alina Irimia and Ioanna Spanache (UEFISCDI); Mojca Kotar (University of Ljubljana); Bojan Macan (Centre for Scientific Information at the Ruđer Bošković Institute); Cameron Neylon (Curtin University’s Centre for Culture and Technology); Chifumi Nishioka and Kaz Yamaji (National Institute of Informatics, Japan); Joy Owango (TCC Africa); Silvio Peroni (OpenCitations/University of Bologna); and Susan Reilly (Irish Research e-Library, IReL). Their thoughtful reflections and openness in sharing institutional experiences and national perspectives were essential to developing the evidence base of this report. The authors thank Ludo Waltman for providing detailed feedback and annotations that helped improve this output, and Teresa Teixeira Lopo for drafting an early version of the interview questions that informed this study. The authors also acknowledge Natalia Manola and Clifford Tatum, co-chairs of the CoARA Working Group OI4RRA, for their leadership in coordinating the group’s overall activities. Finally, the authors extend their appreciation to the members of the CoARA Working Group OI4RRA for their continued engagement, feedback, and commitment throughout the preparation of this publication. Transitioning to Open Infrastructures for Responsible Research Assessment: Barriers, Enablers, and Strategic Recommendations ANNEX: METHODOLOGY Research Approach This study employed a qualitative research approach, utilizing 13 semi-structured interviews with 17 experts and stakeholders specialized in RRA and OIs. The objective was to identify barriers, enablers, necessary resources, and policy conditions that influence institutional transitions toward adopting OIs fit for RRA. Data Collection Process, Expert Selection and Outreach Participants were strategically selected based on their active involvement in open science, research assessment, and digital infrastructure communities. Selection criteria included participation in relevant working groups, conferences, policy forums, and professional networks such as the CoARA Working Group on ‘’Towards Open Infrastructures for Responsible Research Assessment’’ and the Paris Conference on Open Research Information. Interview Structure Interviews were semi-structured to ensure consistency while allowing depth and flexibility in discussions. Questions addressed predefined thematic dimensions: • Progress regarding the transition to OIs for RRA in an institution/country. • Primary factors facilitating the transition to ΟΙs for RRA at institutional or national levels. • Main challenges or obstacles faced by institutions transitioning toward OIs for RRA. • National science policy conditions necessary for developing sustainable OIs for RRA. • Technological challenges hindering development and adoption of OIs for RRA. • Resource requirements, including human effort, financial capital, and expertise, for transitioning toward OIs for RRA. • Partnerships in the context of OIs for RRA. • Ethical considerations related to the engagement with and adoption of OIs for RRA, especially regarding openness and data sharing. Interviews lasted from 45 minutes to 1.5 hours and were conducted via video conferencing platforms and occasionally supplemented by written references. Transcriptions were systematically categorized according to thematic dimensions for detailed analysis. During interviews, researchers also recorded reflective notes as analytical memos, capturing immediate insights. These memos were subsequently coded and included in the analysis. Data Analysis and Coding Data analysis utilized a thematic coding approach guided by memos recorded during the interviews. An extensive coding process led to 205 detailed codes, organized under the Transitioning to Open Infrastructures for Responsible Research Assessment: Barriers, Enablers, and Strategic Recommendations eight thematic dimensions. A restructure of the coding process resulted in 133 codes. The analysis examined institutional transition levels, necessary policy conditions, barriers, enabling factors, technological challenges, resource needs, partnerships, and ethical considerations. Limitations Despite methodological rigor, limitations included geographical representation constraints due to expert availability, variability in institutional policies affecting the universality of findings, and temporal constraints due to the rapidly evolving nature of OIs landscapes. Ethical Considerations The research adhered to ethical standards by ensuring voluntary participation, informed consent, confidentiality and anonymization of responses, in case it is requested, and secure data management practices. This structured and comprehensive methodology ensures evidence-based recommendations to effectively guide policymakers, institutions, and researchers toward adopting sustainable OIs for RRA.