Demystify open research

Most researchers view open research as useful and want to do more, according to a UK Reproducibility Network 2025 survey. Yet less than half know where to find further guidance. Community-driven training, such as our institution’s Coding for Reproducible Research programme, can help bridge this gap by addressing the practical and professional barriers that prevent researchers from putting open research into practice.

Open research can involve sharing a wide range of materials, from data and software to protocols, methods and documentation. Although these tasks seem straightforward, to adhere to the required standards, researchers must often identify appropriate repositories and learn how to prepare, document and deposit materials in certain formats, which can create barriers. These can be addressed with training.

• Spotlight guide: How to foster an open research culture
• Five ways to start leading research culture change
• Open research by principle, not by checklist

Institutional training signals endorsement for open research and helps expand researchers’ understanding. However, knowledge alone does not guarantee changes in everyday practice. To be successful, training should directly address hesitancy to share the resources that underpin research. Such barriers include:

• Lack of time: in a results-driven environment, time-poor academics struggle to justify upskilling for tasks that feel peripheral to immediate research priorities.
• Impostor syndrome: feelings of discomfort may lead participants to question whether they belong in unfamiliar environments. 
• Perceived professional risk: making incomplete work or gaps in knowledge more visible can leave researchers feeling exposed to judgement or criticism. 
• Limited incentives: researchers may value open research but struggle to prioritise it when the academic environment rewards other work.

Designing effective open research training programmes

How the training is delivered matters as much as the content. As we strive to build confidence as well as competence, we need to appeal to the diverse backgrounds of staff. Workshops should lean into participants’ strengths in critical thinking. Rather than dictate a solution, they should look to start a conversation. Participants should feel empowered to ask questions and be shown the opportunities and limitations of different tools and approaches. By empowering them to decide which tools and processes best suit their work, we can inspire change. We recommend that workshops:

• Emphasise progress over perfection: set out short learning steps and easy wins rather than an overwhelming menu of options.
• Support practice: embed guided exercises, opportunities to ask questions and constructive feedback instead of relying entirely on self-study.
• Humanise the trainer: trainers should describe their backgrounds to remind participants that these skills evolve across a career. 
• Accept errors: trainers should demonstrate how to diagnose and resolve them. 

A university-wide training programme should reflect the needs of different types of research. One effective way to achieve this is to build resources using input from multiple contributors with diverse perspectives. 

The Coding for Reproducible Research programme brings together contributors from across our institution including the Research Software and Analytics (RSA) group to deliver workshops, advise on content and co-develop training resources. This brings technical expertise into direct dialogue with disciplinary needs, helping ensure the training is relevant across fields from computer science to the humanities. Collaboratively, we have created a series of learning materials with practical exercises, available as self-paced online notes and workshop-ready delivery packs. 

We see these shared training materials as a legacy of the programme, and hosting them is core to their long-term sustainability. To promote co-development, contributors need a clear process for proposing, implementing and reviewing changes to the training materials. We manage additions and improvements to the shared training materials in a similar way to contributions to a collaborative, open-source software project. This helps the materials to evolve over time. 

Evolution and long-term sustainability

Grassroots enthusiasm can help kickstart a programme, but long-term sustainability requires dedicated institutional support to maintain the materials and coordinate workshops. Our programme is based within the RSA team, giving it a clear organisational home and access to relevant technical expertise. For institutions developing similar training, we recommend assigning clear responsibility for coordination while inviting contribution from the wider community.

Our ambition is to make open research feel like a natural progression of researchers’ work rather than a high-risk, low-reward activity. While we can motivate participants in the classroom, our best efforts will fail if the commitment to open research is not reinforced across the organisation. 

Eilis Hannon is an associate professor and Liam Berrisford is a research software engineer. Both work at the University of Exeter.