Open Data First: 2026 Resolution for Transparent Research

↑
↑

  //science-technology.news-articles.net/content/2 .. st-2026-resolution-for-transparent-research.html
  Published in Science and Technology on Tuesday, December 23rd 2025 at 11:09 GMT by Forbes
      Locale: UNITED STATES

Three Resolutions Scientists and Their Institutions Should Make in 2026

In a thought‑provoking piece for Forbes, Marshall Shepherd outlines three concrete “resolutions” that researchers, university leaders, and funding bodies can adopt in 2026 to make the scientific enterprise more transparent, collaborative, and sustainable. Shepherd’s call is grounded in the latest trends—open science, interdisciplinary work, and the economics of research—and is supported by a number of high‑profile organizations and tools that are already reshaping the research landscape.

1. Pledge Open Access to All Data and Findings

The first resolution urges a universal commitment to open science. Shepherd explains that, while many journals now offer open‑access options, the broader ecosystem still struggles with “data silos.” He cites the Open Science Framework (OSF) and the Harvard Dataverse as models for how data can be stored, curated, and shared in a machine‑readable format. In 2026, he proposes that:

• All raw data and analysis scripts must be deposited in a recognized repository before publication. This step would dramatically reduce the “reproducibility crisis” that has plagued fields from genomics to climate science.
• Institutions should embed data‑sharing clauses in internal grant agreements and hiring contracts. By tying tenure and promotion to open‑data practices, universities can institutionalize transparency.
• Funding agencies should require an open‑data plan in grant applications and provide financial support for data curation. Shepherd points to the European Union’s Horizon Europe program, which has already begun mandating data management plans, as a blueprint.

The article highlights the Wellcome Trust’s “Open Research” initiative, noting how it provides funding for both open‑access publishing and open‑data infrastructure. Shepherd argues that a unified data‑sharing culture will accelerate discovery, reduce duplication of effort, and build public trust in science.

2. Forge Interdisciplinary Consortia Around Societal Challenges

The second resolution focuses on the power of collaboration. Shepherd argues that many of the most pressing global problems—climate change, pandemics, food security—cannot be solved within a single discipline. He cites examples such as the Human Cell Atlas and the Human Connectome Project, which bring together biologists, engineers, computer scientists, and ethicists to tackle complex questions.

Key actions he recommends include:

• Create permanent interdisciplinary centers at major research universities. These centers should be funded by a mix of federal grants, private foundations, and industry partnerships, allowing for long‑term, flexible research agendas.
• Encourage “mobility grants” that let junior researchers spend time at other institutions or even in industry labs. Shepherd points to the National Science Foundation’s “Collaborative Innovation Award” as a model for cross‑disciplinary training.
• Adopt a “mission‑driven” grant system where proposals are judged not only on scientific merit but also on their potential to address identified societal needs. He draws attention to the National Institutes of Health’s “Translational Research Initiative” as an example.

By 2026, Shepherd envisions a research ecosystem where interdisciplinary teams are the norm, and where funding bodies explicitly reward collaboration over siloed excellence.

3. Redesign Funding Models to Reduce Waste and Increase Impact

The third resolution tackles the economics of science. Shepherd highlights the staggering amount of grant money that ends up in administrative overhead, redundant studies, or projects that never see publication. He argues for a shift toward “impact‑first” funding, where money is directed to high‑potential projects and then monitored for tangible outcomes.

Specific recommendations include:

• Implement “portfolio reviews” for grant agencies, focusing on both efficiency and innovation. Shepherd cites the UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) annual portfolio reviews, which aim to balance risk and reward.
• Encourage “open‑competition” funding rounds where multiple institutions can bid on the same project, creating healthy competition and lowering costs. The US National Institutes of Health’s “Accelerated Innovation Fund” is highlighted as a successful pilot.
• Mandate post‑project impact reporting, ensuring that funded research translates into policy, technology, or public engagement. Shepherd links to the OECD’s guidelines on research impact assessment.

By restructuring how research dollars are allocated and monitored, Shepherd believes institutions can cut administrative burdens, reduce duplication, and accelerate the translation of science into societal benefit.

Putting It All Together

Shepherd’s article frames the 2026 resolutions not as lofty ideals but as actionable steps that institutions can begin implementing immediately. He emphasizes that the scientific community must view these resolutions as collective pledges—akin to a “New Year’s resolution” for the global research ecosystem. By committing to open data, interdisciplinary collaboration, and smarter funding, scientists and their institutions can make a lasting impact on both the scientific enterprise and the world at large.

The piece concludes with a call to action: “The next decade will test our willingness to share, collaborate, and fund wisely. Let us resolve to do better, for the sake of discovery and the future of humanity.”