21/10/2025
By Maria Karatzia
“How do we know which open science policies and practices actually work?” asks Henriikka Mustajoki, Secretary General of Finland’s National Open Science Coordination and one of GRIOS’s architects. It’s a question that has followed her through years of policy development and advocacy.
“Countries and institutions worldwide have invested significant resources in creating open science infrastructures and policies, and I believe it has made a huge difference“, she explains. “However, when someone asks what concrete benefits we’re getting in return for this investment, we struggle to provide evidence-based answers as the evidence is difficult to pull together in the complex world.“
Despite growing global commitments to open science, advocates often rely on principles and values rather than empirical evidence when explaining its impact. “I believe deeply in open science because of the values it represents: equal access, equity and the principle that research created with public money should be publicly available,” Henriikka says. “But I also recognise that we need better evidence about what works and why.“
It’s precisely this evidence gap that led to the creation of GRIOS, the Global Research Initiative on Open Science, that aims to gather and synthesise evidence about what works in open science – and why it matters.
The genesis of GRIOS reveals a dual focus on how its founders approach the challenge of open science. “There are two essential questions we need to answer,” Henriikka explains. “First, how do we create better policies that enhance open science? And second, why does open science matter? In simple words, how does open science make the world a better place?“
This dual focus – on both policy improvement and demonstrating impact – reflects Henriikka’s pragmatic approach. As someone who is involved in driving policy and coordination efforts at national and international level, she needs answers to both questions.
“In Finland, we have this unique co-creative policy writing process where the entire research community – funders, universities, and infrastructure people – collaborates to develop policies together,” she says. “It’s laborious, so we need to understand if this approach makes our policies more impactful than if the ministry had written them directly. These are questions that GRIOS can help answer.“
There are two essential questions we need to answer. First, how do we create better policies that enhance open science? And second, why does open science matter? In simple words, how does open science make the world a better place?
The problem GRIOS addresses is fundamental: despite years of open science advocacy, we have remarkably little evidence about its actual impact. “We know very little about the global impact of open science,” Henriikka explains. “When knowledge is openly available, it’s really hard to track where it goes and how it’s used.“
This evidence gap creates a circular problem. Policymakers want proof that open science investments deliver results, but the very nature of openness makes those results difficult to measure. Meanwhile, researchers caught between institutional demands and career pressures need clear guidance on which open practices are worth the effort.
The case becomes even more complex when considering how to share successful policies across different research cultures and systems. “The policy issue is particularly challenging because it’s so contextual,” Henriikka notes. “What works in Finland is unlikely to work similarly in France, for example.” This highlights another dimension of the evidence gap – understanding not just what works universally, but recognising how cultural, institutional, and national contexts impact policy transferability and adaptation.
We know very little about the global impact of open science. When knowledge is openly available, it’s really hard to track where it goes and how it’s used.
The open science landscape features numerous valuable initiatives, projects, and platforms. What makes GRIOS different?
“What GRIOS aims to do is pull together all the valuable evidence that’s currently scattered across multiple open science initiatives,” Henriikka explains. “We can have great landscape studies and pockets of knowledge, but we’re missing the big picture view.“
GRIOS goes beyond data collection to focus on synthesis and interpretation. Through systematic reviews and evidence mapping, it aims to translate fragmented knowledge into actionable insights for the research community. “I see GRIOS as a sense-making effort,” Henriikka emphasises. “Not just providing landscape studies but genuinely trying to interpret what the evidence means for the open science community, the research community, and society at large.“
Behind all the policies, Henriikka sees a human challenge. Researchers – the people who ultimately determine whether open science succeeds or fails – often find themselves in a difficult position. “I often think about individual researchers caught between a rock and a hard place,” she says. “They’re required to do open science activities that don’t give them merit. These policies are difficult to comply with, because even motivated researchers often lack resources in money or time.“
This reality check anchors GRIOS in the lived experience of researchers. The initiative seeks not just abstract knowledge but practical insights that can make open science more sustainable for the people who implement it. “How do we create a research community where open science is truly integrated, not something extra researchers need to do on top of everything else?” Henriikka asks. “This requires a major cultural change.“
When asked what success would look like for GRIOS in three years, Henriikka’s answer focuses on people. “I’d be most proud if we created a community of people who seek good questions, search for answers, and remain in dialogue,” she says. “The individual reviews we will produce will be great, but the way they will be used is through the community.“
For Henriikka, building trusted communities has become increasingly crucial in an era of misinformation and declining trust. She sees GRIOS not as a standalone project but as a catalyst for dialogue across the research ecosystem, where “communities are the answer” to today’s complex challenges.
For those inspired by GRIOS’s mission, Henriikka offers a straightforward call to action. “My recommendation is to be more vocal about these issues,” she urges. “Bring your concerns to the table, bring your needs to the table, and find like-minded people to start conversations.” She insists that dialogue is precisely what’s needed to move forward. “We can’t reach a future if we can’t imagine it,” she argues. “If GRIOS can create space for that dialogue, it’s doing really well.“
As our conversation ends, Henriikka returns to one of the fundamental questions that drives GRIOS: what kind of research community do we want? The answer, she suggests, won’t be found in policy documents or infrastructure plans, but in our collective vision for science itself. “I want a research community that is evidence-based,” she says. “We talk about evidence-based everything, but can we make policies that are evidence-based? No, we can’t—because we don’t know enough yet.“
Filling that knowledge gap is where GRIOS begins its work.
Ready to be part of the conversation? Join us: https://www.grios.org/contact
