Open science guidelines are a crucial topic within the community, as many emphasize the importance of shifting the conversation from “why open science” to “how to do open science”. While universal policies exist (e.g., UNESCO), the actual systems and tools must often be tailored to specific disciplines and institutions.
Today, we highlight an example of this adaptation at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development (MPIB). On September 26, 2025, the Institute officially approved its new Open Science and Research Data Management Guidelines. Given that MPIB’s research ranges from longitudinal studies and brain imaging to cross-sectional surveys, a “one-size-fits-all” approach was insufficient. Instead, the new guidelines serve as a practical toolkit, clearly defining the responsibilities of both the institute and its researchers to streamline processes across this diverse methodological landscape.
Recognizing this, the guidelines serve four main purposes:
- Expediting Research: By providing a predefined workflow, researchers would spend less time on every project.
- Defining Strategy: They articulate exactly where the Institute stands on Open Science (OS) and Research Data Management (RDM) practices.
- Providing Orientation: New and current members have a clear framework to follow through.
- Promoting Best Practices: Actively encouraging the adoption of transparent and reproducible methods across the Institute.
Beyond the core objectives, the guidelines are hosted in a way that allows any Institute member to propose changes directly. This fosters a bottom-up culture of contribution, ensuring the guidelines remain a “living document” that evolves along with the researchers.
An interview with RDM & OS working group members:
To better understand the work behind the implementation, we invited some of the contributors of the project to walk us through the creation of the guidelines.
Max Planck Institute for Human Development in Berlin
What sparked the idea for this project, and what was the primary motivation for launching this initiative at the institute?
The initiative was driven by a combination of internal and external factors. The Institute’s most recent evaluation by its scientific advisory board explicitly recommended strengthening Open Science and research data management practices. At the same time, we recognized that while the Max Planck Society promotes Open Science in different ways, it doesn’t mandate a uniform policy across its 84 institutes. Given the methodological diversity at our Institute, we needed a truly practical framework relevant to our research culture, both with respect to Open Science and research data management practices. The motivation was to create a living, usable guide that supports our researchers across the research life cycle.
How did you and your team navigate the process of collaborating with so many other authors and research groups to reach a consensus?
We built the process around inclusion and transparency from the start by involving researchers across different disciplines, career stages, and support roles. We used GitLab as a collaborative platform where anyone could raise issues or suggest changes. Before formal drafting, we ran an internal survey and hosted a workshop to gather input. During the writing process, we obtained both internal and external feedback, leading to further revisions. Finally, we organized an editathon: a four-hour collaborative writing event that brought together several colleagues to address key questions, develop a FAQ and a glossary, and refine the language and content for better understanding. This mix of structured feedback loops and shared writing sessions helped align perspectives and ensure the guidelines resonated with the actual needs of the community.
Looking back, what were the key lessons learned from managing this project?
One major insight was that the process is as important as the output. We learned that investing time upfront in planning, tool selection, coordination, and flexibility pays off, especially when working with a large, distributed team. Choosing a suitable writing tool (with a traceability feature) from the beginning was a critical factor for the entire operation. Another key lesson: the success of the project depended heavily on having a core group of motivated individuals who were already invested in Open Science and research data management. But perhaps most importantly, we realized that this project would only work if it reflected the real-world needs of institute members. That’s why we prioritized diversity in authorship and feedback, as well as practicality. We hope that with annual reviews and the support of representatives of MPIB’s diverse research areas, the guidelines can keep up with the times, remaining relevant and effective also in the future.
For more information about the development process (in German), please refer to Blunk (2025) at https://doi.org/10.5282/o-bib/6212. Follow-up questions can be sent via e-mail to openscience [at] mpib-berlin [dot] mpg [dot] de.
