Zubair Khalid

Virologist/Molecular Biologist | Veterinarian | Bioinformatician

Conventional & Molecular Virology • Vaccine Development • Computational Biology

Dr. Zubair Khalid is a veterinarian and virologist specializing in conventional and molecular virology, vaccine development, and computational biology. Dedicated to advancing animal health through innovative research and multi-omics approaches.

Dr. Zubair Khalid - Veterinarian, Virologist, and Vaccine Development Researcher specializing in Computational Biology, Multi-omics, Animal Health, and Infectious Disease Research

Category: Guides

Open Science in Horizon Europe: Compliance and Best Practices

Horizon Europe, the European Union research and innovation programme running until 2027, makes open science a contractual obligation instead of a recommendation. Projects funded under this framework must provide open access to peer-reviewed publications, manage research data according to the FAIR principles, and engage with responsible research practices. This article explains the specific compliance requirements, the practical steps for meeting them, and the common pitfalls that lead to grant agreement breaches. The guidance applies to coordinators, principal investigators, data managers, and researchers preparing proposals or managing active grants under Horizon Europe, including Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) projects.

The Open Science Mandate in Horizon Europe

Open science in Horizon Europe operates as a default setting for all funded research. The programme requires beneficiaries to deposit publications and data in trusted repositories, ensure immediate open access, and provide the information needed to verify research outputs. These obligations differ from earlier programmes in their scope and enforcement. The transition from Horizon 2020 to Horizon Europe introduced stronger requirements around data management and reproducibility, reflecting lessons learned from the previous framework.

The Results of the implementation of the open access policy of the Horizon 2020 program and the prospects for the Horizon Europe program documents how the earlier programme built the infrastructure and cultural acceptance for open access. Horizon Europe builds on that foundation with more explicit mandates. The Horizon Europe, research and innovation programme until 2027 - what is new comparing with Horizon 2020? highlights the structural changes, including the shift from optional to mandatory open access and the introduction of data management as a formal deliverable.

The programme also embeds open science within broader research quality expectations. The Recommendations on Open Science Rewards and Incentives explain that making research outputs usable by others requires considerable time, energy, and expertise. Horizon Europe recognises this effort through evaluation criteria that reward open science practices during proposal assessment and through reporting requirements that track compliance during project implementation.

Core Obligations for Beneficiaries

Open Access to Publications

Every peer-reviewed scientific publication resulting from Horizon Europe funding must be deposited in a trusted repository at the time of publication. The deposit must include the final published version or the accepted author manuscript, along with the metadata needed for discovery. Access must be immediate, with no embargo period. The repository must provide the necessary information to identify the publication, the funding source, and the licensing terms.

The NCBI Literature Resources and PubMed platforms demonstrate how bibliographic databases support the discovery and verification of research outputs. While these services are not repositories for compliance purposes, they illustrate the metadata standards that make research findable. The EQUATOR Network provides reporting guidelines that support transparent and complete publication of research methods and findings, which aligns with the reproducibility goals of open science.

Research Data Management

Horizon Europe requires beneficiaries to manage research data according to the FAIR principles: findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable. Each project must produce a Data Management Plan (DMP) as a deliverable, typically within the first six months. The DMP must describe what data the project will generate or reuse, how it will be curated and preserved, and which parts will be made openly available.

The Research Data Framework from the National Institute of Standards and Technology provides a structured approach to data management planning. The framework helps researchers identify the components of sound data practice, including data description, collection methods, quality assurance, and preservation strategies. Applying such a framework during proposal preparation strengthens the DMP and reduces the risk of non-compliance later.

The practical challenge of making data machine-actionable is substantial. The FAIR in practice: minimum metadata schema for bioinformatics analytics by machines found that metadata in common repositories often lacks the standardisation and ontological descriptions needed for automated reuse. The proposed schema identifies the minimum metadata properties for identification, selection, validation, and execution of tools, and aligns these with dataset metadata. Projects should plan for this level of detail when designing their data management workflows.

Reproducibility and Research Quality

Open science in Horizon Europe extends beyond access to outputs. The programme expects research to be reproducible, which requires transparent methods, documented analysis pipelines, and access to the underlying data and code. The Experimental Design Assistant from the NC3Rs supports researchers in planning robust experimental designs, reducing the risk of bias and improving the reliability of findings. Using such tools during study design strengthens the scientific basis of the research and supports the reproducibility expectations of the programme.

The EQUATOR Network provides reporting guidelines for different study types. Following these guidelines ensures that publications contain the information needed for others to understand and replicate the research. This aligns with the Horizon Europe expectation that funded research contributes to the collective scientific knowledge base in a usable form.

At a Glance: Compliance Requirements and Actions

Requirement What You Must Do Common Compliance Point
Open access to publications Deposit the final published version or accepted manuscript in a trusted repository with immediate access Verify repository eligibility and licensing before publication
Data Management Plan Submit a DMP as a deliverable, typically within 6 months of project start Update the DMP when data practices change during the project
FAIR data sharing Make data findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable, with exceptions justified Document the reasons for restricting access to specific datasets
Reproducibility Provide methods, code, and analysis details sufficient for others to verify findings Use reporting guidelines and design tools during study planning
Research outputs reporting Report publications, datasets, and other outputs in the EU Funding and Tenders portal Track all outputs continuously, also at reporting deadlines

Practical Implementation Steps

Step 1: Assess Your Current Open Science Readiness

Before preparing a proposal, evaluate your institution's infrastructure and your team's capacity for open science compliance. Check whether your institution operates a repository that meets the requirements for trusted repositories. Confirm that your library or research office can advise on licensing, metadata, and deposit workflows. Identify the costs associated with open access publishing and data curation, and include these in your budget.

The Building National Open Science Cloud Initiatives (NOSCIs) in Southeast Europe and the Challenges of Promoting Open Science within the NI4OS-Europe Project in Hungary illustrate the uneven development of open science infrastructure across Europe. Researchers in regions with less mature support systems face additional burdens in meeting compliance requirements. If your institution lacks robust infrastructure, plan for additional effort and budget to bridge the gaps.

Step 2: Integrate Open Science into Proposal Development

Open science practices are evaluated during proposal assessment. Describe how your project will comply with the open access mandate, how the DMP will be developed and maintained, and how you will ensure the reproducibility of your findings. Address the specific expectations for your call topic, as some topics include additional requirements beyond the general provisions.

The Impact of the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) report notes that MSCA principles include Open Science and responsible research practices. For MSCA projects, open science is embedded in the training and career development objectives. Fellows must understand and apply open science practices as part of their professional development, and supervisors must support this learning.

Step 3: Develop the Data Management Plan Early

Draft the DMP during proposal preparation and finalise it shortly after project start. The DMP must cover the data lifecycle, including collection, processing, analysis, preservation, and sharing. Specify the repositories you will use, the file formats you will adopt, and the metadata standards you will apply. Identify which data will be openly available and which will be restricted, with clear justifications for any restrictions.

The Leveraging technologies for data management and sharing to foster collaboration and implement data spaces analysis of European-funded projects identifies common strategies for effective data management, including semantic standards, data catalogues, and federated identity management. These approaches support interoperability across projects and infrastructures, which aligns with the European Strategy for Data and the development of Common European Data Spaces.

Step 4: Establish Deposit Workflows

Set up clear procedures for depositing publications and data. Assign responsibility for deposits to specific team members. Establish quality checks to verify that deposits include the required metadata and that access conditions are correctly configured. Monitor the status of deposits to ensure they occur at the time of publication instead of months later.

The FAIR in practice research demonstrates that incomplete metadata and missing ontological descriptions are common problems in repositories. Plan your metadata carefully and validate it before deposit. This reduces the risk of your outputs being undiscoverable or unusable by others.

Step 5: Maintain Compliance Throughout the Project

Open science compliance is not a one-time activity. Update the DMP when your data practices change. Add new publications and datasets to the reporting system as they are produced. Review your compliance status before each reporting period and address any gaps promptly. The Recommendations on Open Science Rewards and Incentives emphasise that making outputs usable requires ongoing effort, and this effort must be recognised and supported throughout the project lifecycle.

Options and Tradeoffs in Open Science Implementation

Choosing Repositories

Beneficiaries must deposit outputs in trusted repositories. Options include institutional repositories, disciplinary repositories, and generalist repositories. Institutional repositories offer local support and integration with institutional systems. Disciplinary repositories provide domain-specific metadata standards and community recognition. Generalist repositories accept any research output and offer simple deposit workflows.

The choice affects discoverability, preservation, and compliance verification. Some repositories provide better support for specific output types, such as software or datasets. Consider the requirements of your research community and the expectations of your funder when selecting repositories. The Research Data Framework can help you evaluate repository capabilities against your data management needs.

Balancing Openness and Protection

Not all data can be made openly available. Personal data, commercially sensitive information, and security-relevant outputs may require restrictions. Horizon Europe allows exceptions but requires justification. The DMP must document the reasons for restricting access and describe the conditions for accessing restricted data.

The Bridging gaps between scientific research and regulatory decision-making in Europe commentary highlights the importance of data harmonisation and accessibility for regulatory use. When research supports regulatory decisions, the data must be available in forms that risk assessors can use. This may require additional curation beyond the minimum FAIR requirements.

Managing Publication Costs

Open access publishing often involves article processing charges. Horizon Europe funding can cover these costs, but budgets must be planned carefully. Some publishers offer transformative agreements that cover open access for affiliated researchers. Check whether your institution participates in such agreements before budgeting for individual article charges.

The transition from Horizon 2020 to Horizon Europe changed the cost eligibility rules for open access. The Horizon Europe, research and innovation programme until 2027 comparison notes these changes. Ensure your budget reflects the current rules and that you track open access costs separately from other publication expenses.

Records and Measurements for Compliance

What to Track

Maintain a register of all research outputs produced during the project. For each publication, record the title, authors, journal, DOI, publication date, and repository deposit status. For each dataset, record the identifier, repository, version, access conditions, and any restrictions. Track the status of the DMP, including the date of each version and the changes made.

The NCBI Literature Resources and PubMed demonstrate the value of persistent identifiers and structured metadata for tracking research outputs. Apply the same principles to your internal records. Use ORCID identifiers for researchers, DOIs for publications and datasets, and grant identifiers to link outputs to funding.

How to Verify Compliance

Check that each publication has been deposited in an approved repository with immediate access. Verify that the deposit includes the correct funding acknowledgement and the required metadata. Confirm that datasets listed in the DMP have been deposited or that restrictions are documented. Review the completeness of your reporting in the EU Funding and Tendering portal before each submission deadline.

The Global Burden of Disease studies demonstrate the importance of systematic data collection and transparent reporting for large-scale research. While your project may be smaller, the same principles apply. Consistent record-keeping from the start of the project prevents the scramble to reconstruct compliance evidence at reporting time.

Common Failure Patterns

Delayed Deposits

Many projects deposit publications months after they appear in journals. This creates a compliance gap and complicates reporting. The cause is often unclear responsibility for deposits or uncertainty about repository requirements. Assign deposit responsibility at the start of the project and build deposit into the publication workflow.

Incomplete Metadata

Deposits that lack required metadata are effectively invisible to other researchers. The FAIR in practice research found that incomplete standardised metadata is a widespread problem. Validate metadata before deposit and use community standards where they exist.

Static Data Management Plans

A DMP written at project start and never updated becomes inaccurate as the research evolves. Funders expect the DMP to reflect current practices. Schedule DMP reviews at each project milestone and update it when you change data collection methods, add new data types, or revise sharing plans.

Ignoring Reproducibility Requirements

Open access to publications without access to underlying data and code does not support reproducibility. The EQUATOR Network reporting guidelines and the Experimental Design Assistant from NC3Rs support rigorous research planning. Projects that neglect these aspects may produce outputs that cannot be verified or built upon by others.

Underestimating Effort

Open science compliance requires ongoing work. The Recommendations on Open Science Rewards and Incentives note that making outputs usable requires considerable time and expertise. Projects that do not allocate staff time or budget for data curation, metadata preparation, and repository deposits will struggle to meet their obligations.

Welfare and Safety Context

Open science practices intersect with research ethics and participant protection. Sharing research data must respect the rights and welfare of research participants. Personal data requires anonymisation or pseudonymisation before sharing, and the legal basis for processing must be documented. The Minderoo-Monaco Commission on Plastics and Human Health illustrates how research on environmental health must balance the public interest in findings against the protection of affected communities.

Research involving animals or hazardous materials has additional considerations. The Experimental Design Assistant supports the design of robust animal studies, which aligns with the principles of the 3Rs (replacement, reduction, refinement). Open science practices can support animal welfare by reducing unnecessary duplication of studies and improving the quality of experimental design.

The Update of the international multidisciplinary classification of the interstitial pneumonias demonstrates how multidisciplinary collaboration and consensus methods produce more robust classifications. The committee included individuals with lived experience alongside clinical experts. This model of inclusive research governance aligns with the open science principle of involving relevant stakeholders in research processes.

Limitations and Professional Escalation

When to Seek Expert Advice

Open science compliance involves legal, technical, and disciplinary dimensions. Consult your institution's research office for guidance on funder requirements and institutional policies. Seek legal advice for questions about data protection, intellectual property, or commercial confidentiality. Engage data management specialists for complex data curation or repository selection decisions.

The Bridging gaps between scientific research and regulatory decision-making commentary emphasises the need for targeted training for researchers and regulators. If your team lacks open science expertise, arrange training before the project starts instead of learning through compliance failures.

Escalation Criteria

Escalate to your institution's research office or the funding authority when you identify a compliance gap that cannot be resolved within the project team. Examples include discovering that a chosen repository does not meet requirements, encountering legal barriers to data sharing that were not anticipated in the DMP, or facing publisher restrictions that prevent immediate open access.

The Citizen Science and Artificial Intelligence in Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe Projects research examines how citizen science projects communicate their findings and achieve scientific impact. Projects involving citizen scientists face additional open science considerations, including how to credit contributors and how to share data collected by non-professional researchers. These projects may require specialised guidance.

Jurisdiction-Specific Requirements

Open science obligations under Horizon Europe interact with national and institutional policies. Some countries have their own open access mandates that may be stricter than the EU requirements. Some institutions have data policies that impose additional obligations. The Building National Open Science Cloud Initiatives and Challenges of Promoting Open Science within the NI4OS-Europe Project in Hungary studies show how national contexts shape open science implementation. Check the requirements that apply to your institution and country, and ensure your compliance plan addresses all applicable obligations.

Frequently Asked Questions

What happens if I do not comply with Horizon Europe open science requirements?

Non-compliance can lead to reduced funding, rejection of deliverables, or termination of the grant agreement. The European Commission can apply financial corrections for ineligible costs and may exclude beneficiaries from future funding. The severity of the consequences depends on the nature and extent of the non-compliance. Address compliance gaps promptly and document your corrective actions.

Does the open access requirement apply to all publication types?

The requirement applies to peer-reviewed scientific publications resulting from Horizon Europe funding. This includes journal articles, conference proceedings, and monographs. The specific obligations may vary by publication type. Check the grant agreement and the Annotated Grant Agreement for the detailed requirements that apply to your project.

Can I use an embargo period for my publications?

No. Horizon Europe requires immediate open access with no embargo. This differs from some national policies and from Horizon 2020, which allowed embargo periods. The deposit must provide immediate access to the final published version or the accepted author manuscript.

What data must be included in the Data Management Plan?

The DMP must cover all data generated or reused in the project. This includes raw data, processed data, and analysed data. It must describe the data collection methods, the formats used, the metadata standards applied, the storage and preservation arrangements, and the sharing plans. The DMP must also address data that will not be shared and the reasons for restrictions.

How do I choose a trusted repository?

A trusted repository provides persistent identifiers, preservation services, and appropriate access controls. It should meet the requirements of the FAIR principles and be recognised by your research community. The Research Data Framework can help you evaluate repository capabilities. Your institution's library or research office can advise on suitable repositories for your discipline.

What is the role of open science in MSCA projects?

MSCA projects embed open science in the training and career development of researchers. Fellows are expected to apply open science practices in their research and to develop skills in data management, open access publishing, and research communication. The Impact of the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions report identifies Open Science as one of the principles that set EU-wide standards for research excellence.

How does open science support research quality?

Open science practices improve research quality by making methods transparent, data verifiable, and findings reproducible. The EQUATOR Network reporting guidelines help researchers publish complete and accurate accounts of their methods. The Experimental Design Assistant supports robust experimental design. These practices reduce the risk of errors and increase the reliability of research findings.

What support is available for open science implementation?

The European Commission provides guidance documents, templates, and training materials for Horizon Europe beneficiaries. The European Open Science Cloud offers infrastructure and services for data sharing and reuse. National open science initiatives provide local support. The Building National Open Science Cloud Initiatives study describes how such initiatives support research and scholarly communication in Southeast Europe.

Related Articles

References and Further Reading

This article is educational and does not replace institutional policy, professional advice, or applicable safety and regulatory requirements.