oa.blog: How did the new “Position Paper for the Development of Open Research in Berlin” come about? 

OROB: To answer that question, it’s important to go back a step to the publication in 2015 of the Berlin Open Access Strategy after its adoption by Berlin’s House of Representatives. The document laid the foundation for the collaborative development of open access activities for Berlin as a research location. One of the stated goals was to increase to at least 60% by 2020 the share of scholarly journal articles published open access by researchers from all scientific institutions under the jurisdiction of the State of Berlin. Further goals were to anchor open access in Berlin’s higher education contracts and to promote discussion on the inclusion of open access as an indicator for the performance-based allocation of funding. In addition, the Open Access Strategy provided for the development of research data and cultural data, or cultural heritage, as further fields of activity besides text publications. The Open Research Office Berlin also emerged from the 2015 Berlin Open Access Strategy. It was founded in 2016 as the “Open-Access-Büro Berlin” and was renamed in 2025.

A good 10 years have now passed, and the science world has kept on turning. Open research has been incorporated, for example, into Berlin’s Higher Education Act (BerlHG): In Section 41, open access and open science are defined and the higher education institutions’ mandate is described. In practice, too, open access has also become established as a general standard in many areas. Sharing research data is becoming increasingly popular. And, as we noted in the 2024 Berlin Report on Open Access, there’s also a lot going on in the cultural sector with the digital opening and use of collections. To take account of these developments and to actively shape conditions – for example on an infrastructural or legislative level – Berlin’s State Initiative for Open Research was launched. This ensures that the successes resulting from the 2015 Open Access Strategy are continued. However, with open research, the entire research cycle is now taken into account, and, in addition to science, other knowledge systems are incorporated. After a participatory process, the state initiative is now presenting the “Position Paper on the Development of Open Research in Berlin,” which outlines numerous proposals and viable ways of consolidating Berlin’s pioneering role in matters of openness.

oa.blog: Summarised in one sentence: What exactly do you mean by “open research”?

OROB: In the state initiative, we have reached the following consensus: By open research we mean a common frame of reference in which various practices and principles of open research are brought together to increase openness, transparency, and participation in science and culture and improve dialogue with other knowledge systems.

oa.blog: What do you hope to gain from the position paper?

OROB: Because of the numerous scientific and cultural institutions, many of which are already interconnected, Berlin already has several locational advantages. There are various well-established alliances and partnerships here that are working together on a range of topics and searching for solutions to shared challenges. Nonetheless, with open research, new potential can be unlocked and anchored beyond science and culture, for example to strengthen the interpenetration of the areas or to improve the capacity for democratic negotiation – and thus also the common good of urban society.

With its position paper on open research, the state initiative is building on this. Open research can strengthen the following three locational advantages for Berlin: first, knowledge transfer and the communication of art and cultural heritage; second, digital sovereignty and resilience; and third, cooperation and joint infrastructure. Open research and open culture make a fundamental contribution to strengthening democratic processes, diversity, and knowledge equity. On the other hand, information infrastructures – especially when they are open and collaboratively managed – are an essential prerequisite for the digital capacity and independence of scientific and cultural-heritage institutions. And finally, partnerships within Berlin create synergies, can increase efficiency, and strengthen the resilience of the city-state as a scientific and cultural hub. In the position paper, the state initiative outlines corresponding measures and explains how they are interrelated.

oa.blog: What are the key points and topics? 

OROB: The paper formulates a total of four major topics: cultures of openness, sovereign knowledge ecosystems, fair funding, and open research monitoring.

Cultures of openness promote transparency, collaboration, and the exchange of knowledge in specialist fields and in the public domain. Only in and with cultures of openness can sovereign knowledge ecosystems develop that enable actors to independently manage their publications, information, and data; design their research processes in an open way; and establish and maintain them in the long term within the framework of open practices.

At the same time, fair funding – that is, funding that is commensurate with the costs – is necessary to strengthen the aforementioned cultures of openness and anchor the development of sovereign knowledge ecosystems institutionally and in the long term. Here, the state initiative considers it essential that Berlin’s institutions be provided with adequate financial resources. At the same time, the institutions must diversify their financial decisions in such a way that the funding of research, including publications, becomes more equitable – in other words, that non-profit-oriented open research is promoted. Only then can the above-mentioned goals be achieved.

Furthermore, we plan to conduct intelligent, context-sensitive monitoring of open research that documents development in the aforementioned thematic areas, thereby making it clear whether the principles of openness, sovereignty, and fairness are being put into practice and where adjustments may be needed. Such monitoring will therefore enable the continuous improvement and adjustment of the measures.

oa.blog: And what concrete objectives does the paper address?

OROB: Specifically, the aim is to achieve the following nine objectives within the four thematic areas: to strengthen recognition, competencies, and legal certainty with regard to open research; to collaboratively develop and maintain robust information infrastructures and to improve commitment to supporting open research; to develop and realise transparent funding models and to initiate a coordinated transformation and diversification of investment behaviour; and to develop and implement suitable methods for observing, documenting, and monitoring open research.

oa.blog: What have you included specifically for open access in the paper? What role does the paper see for open access in the broader context of open research? 

OROB: The definition of open research is based on previous initiatives and recommendations, for example the Budapest Open Access Initiative (2002), the Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing (2003), and the Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities (2003). When it comes to the publication of scientific information and research by members of higher education institutions, this should take place under an open licence with the aim of ensuring reusability (open access). As open access has developed into a very lucrative business model for for-profit publishers in recent years, one focus is currently on diversifying higher education institutions’ funding decisions (fair funding), and accordingly on promoting open access as not-for-profit publishing. By this we don’t mean that fair open access publishing necessarily costs less, but rather that the investment in sustainable and scholar-led publishing initiatives and models allows costs and prices to be made transparent, thereby making public funding more equitable. At the same time, the technological investments and the research community’s commitment to innovative approaches to science communication can be anchored more firmly at higher education institutions.

oa.blog: Why is the position paper also interesting for other institutions and open access professionals, even though it refers to Berlin?

OROB: When drafting the paper, the state initiative drew inspiration from numerous existing initiatives and other papers, for example from UNESCO, the DFG, and of course from developments in the Berlin area. Thus, we depict the status quo in open research in 2026, which is interesting not only for institutions and open access professionals but also for interested researchers in general. The nine objectives addressed include cultural, legal, infrastructural, technical, and financial aspects of open research and are intended to provide impetus for the joint further development of open science and culture – for example by integrating the work of libraries, archives, and cultural-heritage institutions with scientific research and teaching, thereby creating synergies. Interested parties should therefore get food for thought for individual problems as well as for the overall package that the state initiative now offers. And finally, the paper also supports transregional cooperation, for instance with state initiatives from other federal states or with local actors. For example, we have had good experiences and cooperate closely with our colleagues from North Rhine-Westphalia, Saarland, and Brandenburg.

oa.blog: Have you gained experience in the strategy process from which other actors pursuing similar projects can learn?

OROB: It takes a lot of staying power to discuss the various interests of the individual stakeholders and to bring them together under the umbrella of a joint paper. In Berlin’s case, that couldn’t be accomplished within a few months. At the same time, what was important to us from the beginning was a transparent and participatory consultation process for jointly drafting the paper. We have documented this in an Addendum that hopefully offers suggestions to comparable initiatives

You have to be prepared for the fact that external framework conditions that are beyond your control may change. In our case, for example, the rerun election for the 19th Berlin House of Representatives on 12 February 2023; or Russia’s invasion of the entire territory of Ukraine; or the success of AI technologies, which now affects large parts of the research process. As part of this process, topics such as the digital sovereignty and resilience of technical systems in the context of openness have become more important, so we in the state initiative have reacted to them. 

Last but not least, the position paper is the result of regular dialogue: not only in the state initiative but also around four times a year with the open access officers from Berlin’s higher education institutions. In these sessions, numerous challenges, solutions, and strategic approaches have been discussed over the years, which have been incorporated into the position paper.

oa.blog: What’s next for the position paper? Have you planned concrete next steps for the practical implementation of the objectives?

OROB: The consultation process did not end with the publication of the paper but rather is now open to the interested public. On PubPub, anyone who wishes to do so and who creates an account can comment on the paper within the framework of a public review procedure, can submit suggestions, ideas, and proposals, and thus participate in the process. The paper is currently being discussed in the committees of the relevant Berlin institutions, and further steps will be discussed in the coming meetings of the state initiative. We are eagerly awaiting the election for Berlin’s House of Representatives on 20 September, after which the course will be set for the major science policy projects in Berlin.

oa.blog: Many thanks!

Fischer, G., Flaig, S., Neufend, M. (2026): “Openness as a Principle: The Position Paper on the Development of Open Research in Berlin. open-access.network. DOI: 10.64395/3zj8s-kxd10