A decade ago, making your research openly available was a virtuous option. Today it is increasingly a condition of funding, publication and, in some systems, promotion. Funders from the US federal agencies to UK Research and Innovation, the European Commission, and a growing number of national councils across Africa, Asia and Latin America now require that publicly funded research outputs — papers and, increasingly, the underlying data — be made openly available. The academic who understands this shift and builds it into their workflow moves faster and wins more; the one who treats it as an afterthought hits walls at submission and reporting time.
Open science is broader than free-to-read papers. It encompasses open access to publications, open and FAIR research data, open methods and materials, preprints, and reproducible analysis. For a working researcher anywhere in the world, the practical question is not whether to engage but how to build openness into a project from the start, so that compliance is automatic rather than a scramble at the end. This guide is part of our Research, Publishing & Impact hub.
Why open science became the default
The shift to open science is driven by a coalition of forces that are unlikely to reverse. Taxpayers and funders argue, reasonably, that publicly funded research should be publicly accessible. The reproducibility crisis across several disciplines showed that closed data and hidden methods let errors and irreproducible claims persist. And the economics of subscription publishing became indefensible to many institutions facing large and rising journal costs. Together these produced coordinated policy — most visibly the international Plan S initiative, which requires that research funded by participating agencies be published in compliant open-access venues.
For researchers in emerging-market systems, open science is also an equity lever: it removes the paywalls that historically locked scholars out of the literature, and it makes your own work visible to a global audience without an expensive journal's gatekeeping. The direction of travel is clear and global. To stay ahead of what is coming, pair this with our guide to evidencing research impact, since open outputs demonstrably reach and influence more people. The authoritative statement of the funder coalition's position is published at coalition-s.org.
Open access routes and funder mandates
Open access comes in several routes, and choosing well saves money and trouble. Gold open access means the final version is free to read on the publisher's site, usually funded by an article processing charge (APC) that can run into thousands of dollars. Green open access means you deposit an accepted manuscript in a repository — your institution's, or a subject repository — at no cost to you, subject to the publisher's embargo. Diamond open access journals are free to both read and publish, often run by scholarly communities, and are especially valuable where APC budgets do not exist.
The crucial skill is knowing your funder's specific mandate before you choose a journal, because a non-compliant venue can breach your grant conditions. Many funders now require immediate open access with a specific licence and permit green deposit as a compliant route — a lifeline for researchers without APC funds. Check each publisher's self-archiving policy and your funder's requirements early. A reliable starting point for global funder and journal policies is Sherpa services and your library's open-access team; deposit your accepted manuscripts and always attach your ORCID iD so outputs are correctly attributed and discoverable across repositories.
FAIR data and research data management
Open science increasingly means opening the data, not just the paper — and the standard funders now invoke is FAIR: data that are Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable. Note that FAIR is not the same as "fully public"; sensitive data (personal, clinical, culturally protected, or commercially confidential) can be FAIR while remaining appropriately restricted, through controlled access and clear metadata. The principle is that your data should be well-described, stored somewhere durable with a persistent identifier, in open formats, with enough documentation that another researcher could understand and reuse it.
Building FAIR practice into a project is far easier than retrofitting it. Decide at the outset how you will name files, structure folders, document variables, and where the data will ultimately be deposited. Choose a trusted repository that mints a DOI so your dataset becomes a citable output in its own right. For researchers in institutions without mature data infrastructure, generalist repositories and disciplinary archives provide durable homes at no cost. The GO FAIR statement of the FAIR principles is the authoritative reference, and our companion piece on how research-support staff enable open science explains who at your institution can help.
Writing a data management plan funders accept
A data management plan (DMP) is now a required part of most grant applications, and a weak one can cost you the award. A DMP describes what data you will generate, how you will document and store it, how you will protect sensitive data, how and when you will share it, and who is responsible. Reviewers read these to check that your openness and data-protection commitments are realistic and costed — a DMP that promises to "share all data" without addressing consent, anonymisation or repository costs signals inexperience.
Write the DMP as a genuine operational plan, not a compliance formality: name the repository, the licence, the metadata standard, the retention period and the budget line for data curation. Update it as the project evolves, because most funders now expect a living document. AcademicStaff's grant progress-report generator can help you turn a maintained DMP into the data-availability sections funders require at reporting time, so your final report inherits the structure you set up at the start. Many funders and institutions provide DMP templates through tools like DMPonline — use your funder's own template wherever one exists so you answer exactly what the reviewers score.
Reproducibility, preprints and open methods
Open science reaches its full value when others can reproduce and build on your work, and that requires opening more than the final data table. Sharing analysis code, detailed protocols, materials and even pre-registered analysis plans makes your findings verifiable and dramatically increases their reuse and citation. Version-controlled code repositories, protocol-sharing platforms and pre-registration services have made this routine in many fields, and reviewers increasingly expect it.
Preprints — posting a manuscript to a public server before or alongside peer review — deserve special mention because they are transformative for researchers outside well-resourced systems. They establish priority, invite feedback, and make your work globally visible instantly and for free, months before formal publication. Most journals now permit preprinting, and many funders encourage it. Combined with open methods and pre-registration, preprints let a researcher anywhere participate in the global scholarly conversation on equal terms. Adopt them deliberately as part of your standard workflow rather than as an occasional experiment.
Getting credit for open outputs
The final piece is ensuring your openness is rewarded, not invisible. Datasets, software, protocols and preprints can all be citable outputs with their own DOIs, and reform movements in research assessment increasingly recognise them alongside journal articles. The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment and the international CoARA agreement both push evaluators to value a wider range of contributions and to judge them on their merits rather than by the prestige of the containing journal — a direction that benefits open, reusable outputs.
To capture this credit, treat every open output as a first-class item on your record: register it with a persistent identifier, list it on your CV and profile, and track its reuse and citation as evidence of reach. AcademicStaff's publication ledger lets you record datasets, code, preprints and articles together, so your open contributions are visible in any grant, promotion or assessment case rather than lost because they were not "papers." For the wider strategy on demonstrating scholarly value, return to the Research, Publishing & Impact hub.
The Open-Science-Ready Project Checklist
A start-of-project checklist covering funder mandate, open-access route, FAIR data plan, repository choice, preprint and pre-registration decisions — so every project is compliant and citable by design, not by scramble.
Want the full article?
Enter your email for free access to the rest of this guide and our TEQSA resource library.
Frequently asked questions
Does open access always mean paying an article processing charge?
No. Gold open access usually involves an APC, but green open access — depositing your accepted manuscript in a repository — is free and compliant with most funder mandates, and diamond journals are free to both read and publish. Check your funder's requirements and the publisher's self-archiving policy before choosing a route.
Does FAIR data mean I have to make everything public?
No. FAIR means Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable, which is not the same as fully open. Sensitive data can be FAIR while remaining under controlled access, with clear metadata describing how to request it. The principle is good description, durable storage and appropriate access, not blanket publication.
Why should I post a preprint?
Preprints establish priority, invite early feedback, and make your work globally visible instantly and for free, often months before formal publication. They are especially powerful for researchers outside well-resourced systems. Most journals now permit preprinting and many funders encourage it, so it is low-risk and high-reward.
The AcademicStaff editorial team writes practical, evidence-based guidance for university staff — drawing on sector reporting, funder guidelines and the lived administrative reality of academic work. Every guide is reviewed for accuracy against current Australian higher-education practice.