Chapter 8: Rewards and Recognition

Authors: Niels Reijner, Eduarda Centeno, Thecla van Wageningen; Reviewers: Nadza Dzinalija, Linda Douw

In the previous chapters, this guidebook explored various concepts and methods for implementing open science in neuroscience. The central premise of the open science movement is that by making scientific practices more transparent, accessible, and collaborative, we can improve research outcomes on individual, institutional, and societal levels. This vision is compelling and worthwhile, and we hope it encourages readers to adopt open science principles in their own work. However, such a shift requires time, effort, and resources. It is natural to wonder at some point: How am I recognized and rewarded for my efforts in this domain?

While many researchers are driven by intrinsic motivation, external system-level incentives also play a crucial role. Currently, open science efforts are often seen as peripheral activities, undertaken in researchers' spare time and rarely prioritized in academic discussions. The rewards and recognition (R&R) movement seeks to change this outdated paradigm by advocating for a more balanced evaluation system that acknowledges contributions beyond traditional research output.

This much-needed shift is not limited to open science; it addresses fundamental issues across academia. For instance, the current system places disproportionate emphasis on publications, often valuing quantity over quality. While it is true that publishing research findings is vital for scientific progress, the hyper-focus on publication metrics has led to several well-documented issues: excessive pressure to publish, the rise of predatory journals, and the underappreciation of diverse academic talents. Researchers who excel in teaching, technical support, or public engagement often receive less recognition than those with high publication counts, despite their significant contributions to the scientific ecosystem. Furthermore, the emphasis on publication quantity often comes at the expense of open science. Sharing data, code, and detailed methods requires additional effort but has rarely been recognized in hiring, promotion or funding decisions. As a result, researchers may withhold datasets to protect their publication record. Preregistration and registered reports, which enhance rigor and reduce bias, are often seen as too time‑consuming. Similarly, open peer review and post‑publication discussion, which can improve transparency and collaboration, receive little formal credit. In practice, activities that strengthen scientific integrity are overshadowed by metrics that prioritize individual publication output.

Fortunately, the landscape is slowly starting to change. Open science has gained unprecedented momentum in recent years. More institutions are recognizing its value and integrating it into their policies. Funding opportunities for open science projects are increasing, and new initiatives are actively reshaping the rewards and recognition framework. These developments have already begun to influence how academic achievements are evaluated (e.g. in grant application processes, reward systems of journals, revised career frameworks in institutions), making it worthwhile for researchers to stay informed about these changes and consider how they might align their work with evolving standards. Shifting academic culture is a gradual process, as meaningful change requires time and collective effort, which also must occur at a policy and institutional level. Yet, even small, deliberate steps can lay the foundation for long-term transformation. In the following sections, we will discuss examples of the current change of the scientific landscape regarding R&R and actionables researchers and institutions can take to support this transition.

Current developments in science

Open data and open publishing initiatives of funding agencies Increasingly, funding agencies like Horizon Europe require datasets of projects they fund to be made openly available within a set amount of time after data has been collected. These agencies sometimes require data-sharing plans to be submitted with funding requests and require publishing in open-science journals, so as to make research available to the public. In some cases, researchers are required to provide layman summaries or talks aimed at the general public to increase the reach of their research.

Evidence-based resumés in research funding calls Implemented, for example, by the Dutch Research Council (NWO), the manner of applying for research funding has been adapted to accommodate a healthier R&R point of view. Here, the resumé (or CV) consists of an academic profile described as a narrative and a list of key outputs. Here output is broadly defined allowing not only research papers, but also output such as datasets, protocols and software. The number of entries is limited to 10 to stress the value of quality over quantity and special attention is paid to output which is openly available.

Universities have started integrating R&R programs Dutch universities have introduced policies, programs, and funding to foster a healthier R&R system. An example includes the TRIPLE (Team, Research, Impact, Professional Performance, Leadership, Education) at Utrecht University, an initiative promoting science as a team effort, valuing diverse individual contributions and encouraging focus on specific domains rather than mastering all, shifting from quantity to quality. Another example is how the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam has revised its career frameworks to recognize research, teaching, and impact as core domains, allowing academics to adjust their focus among them, while also acknowledging development, leadership, and management as essential to academia.

San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) The Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) is a global initiative that promotes responsible and equitable methods for evaluating scholarly research. They have created Tools to Advance Research Assessment (TARA), an online open dataset that shows criteria and standards academic institutions use for hiring, review, promotion, and tenure around the world

Badges for open science practices Journals like Psychological Science and Cognition award badges for practices like preregistration, open data, and open materials.

Perspectives and actionables for scientists

To end this brief chapter, we would like to highlight some practical steps towards a brighter rewards and recognition paradigm. This is also because transforming how we recognize and reward contributions in the scientific community requires more than just adjustments at the institutional level; it demands a fundamental change in our personal mindset. This transformation calls for a shift in the way scientists, regardless of their position, view and appreciate the diverse roles that propel research forward.

Team science and recognizing diverse efforts

Embracing ‘team science’, acknowledging that research is a collective effort rather than the work of a few, can greatly enhance recognition & rewards practices within your immediate environment. One of the most significant steps we can make in this regard is to broaden our concept of authorship. In many research settings, credit has traditionally been reserved for principal investigators and lead researchers, while the indispensable work of lab technicians, data managers, and other support staff often remain unrecognized. By including these contributors as co-authors on publications, we not only directly reward their efforts but also pave the way for a more dynamic and inclusive career path. This inclusive practice sends a powerful cultural message: every role within a research team is essential, and all contributions are worthy of acknowledgment. Beyond authorship, there is a growing need to redefine what success looks like in academia. The conventional metrics—such as publication counts and citation indexes—often fail to capture the full spectrum of valuable contributions, including data sharing, methodological innovations, and science communication. Embracing alternative metrics that recognize these diverse efforts is essential for fostering a research environment where every achievement is visible and celebrated.

Enhancing Mentorship and Communication

At the heart of these changes lies the quality of mentorship and communication. Effective guidance can make a profound difference in how contributions are recognized and valued. A critical starting point is to engage in comprehensive discussions about goals, milestones, and deliverables right at the beginning of a project. These conversations help clarify what constitutes valuable work and ensure that both mentors and mentees are on the same page regarding expectations. It is not uncommon for valuable contributions to go unnoticed simply because they were not explicitly discussed or documented early on. These initial discussions should evolve into an ongoing dialogue. Mentorship is most effective when it is a two-way street, where both mentors and mentees share their perspectives and aspirations openly. Mentors can empower their mentees by inviting them to explore non-traditional research activities such as open science initiatives, data sharing, or public engagement. In turn, mentees benefit from understanding that their efforts in these areas are recognized and valued. Regular check-ins throughout a project help ensure that goals remain aligned and that every milestone achieved is duly acknowledged.

Peer-to-peer recognition

Cultivate a culture that celebrates achievements among peers; not only the major milestones, but also the small yet essential steps along the way. In science, we often overlook these modest victories, even though they are the very building blocks of larger breakthroughs. By recognizing all contributions, we give these steps the value they deserve, making them feel more meaningful and motivating. A simple first step could be to dedicate a few minutes at the start of each team meeting to announce and celebrate recent achievements, no matter their size.