Horizon Europe FP10 open science provisions will largely carry forward the current mandate for open access to publications and FAIR research data, while adding a ten-year data-retention rule for European Partnerships, tighter research-security safeguards, and a still-unresolved fight over an “EU preference” clause in the linked European Competitiveness Fund. Nothing is final: the Commission, Council and Parliament are still negotiating the text.
FP10 is the working name for the EU’s tenth Research and Innovation Framework Programme, the seven-year successor to Horizon Europe running 2028–2034. The Commission published its legislative proposal for the programme, formally still titled “Horizon Europe,” on 17 July 2025, with open science written in as a core principle — a continuation, not a new addition.
This piece maps what has actually been proposed and negotiated, as distinct from advocacy wish-lists, for research administrators and funders planning for 2028.
- What is FP10, and why does its open science mandate matter now?
- What has the European Commission proposed for open science in FP10?
- How are the Council and European Parliament changing the proposal?
- What are Science Europe, OpenAIRE and universities asking to change?
- Answer-first Q&A on Horizon Europe open science
- What this means for research offices — and what happens next
What is FP10, and why does its open science mandate matter now?
FP10 is the tenth EU Research and Innovation Framework Programme, legally proposed as “Horizon Europe” for 2028–2034, succeeding the current Horizon Europe (2021–2027). Open science is a legal obligation for grant beneficiaries, built around two mandatory practices: open access to peer-reviewed publications and open access to research data, applied under “as open as possible, as closed as necessary” (European Research Executive Agency, REA).
Negotiations matter now because the open science architecture for the next seven years of EU-funded research is being fixed in 2026–2027, ahead of a fixed January 2028 start — not in some distant future.
- 2024: The Letta, Draghi and Heitor expert-group reports all feed into FP10’s design.
- 17 July 2025: The Commission adopts its legislative proposal for the FP10 Regulation and Specific Programme (COM(2025) 543 and 544).
- 13 March 2026: MEPs Christian Ehler (lead rapporteur) and René Repasi (co-rapporteur) publish draft ITRE reports on the proposal.
- 16 and 26 June 2026: The Council agrees partial negotiating positions, first on the European Competitiveness Fund, then on Horizon Europe/FP10 itself.
- Before end of 2027: Trilogue and formal adoption, ahead of the January 2028 start.
What has the European Commission proposed for open science in FP10?
The Commission’s July 2025 proposal keeps open science as a named core principle of FP10. It does not remove Horizon Europe’s two mandatory practices — open access publishing and FAIR data sharing — but reframes them within a broader simplification and “portfolio” logic governing European Partnerships.
Two additions stand out. Partnerships funded under FP10 must adopt a data strategy keeping data FAIR and available for at least ten years after the partnership ends — a retention requirement with no direct equivalent today. Implementation also shifts toward single, centrally managed award procedures, cutting the layered national/EU reporting that currently complicates open science compliance monitoring across co-funded partnerships. Continued funding for the European Open Science Cloud (EOSC) and Open Research Europe (ORE) is presented as necessary to make the mandates operable at scale.
How are the Council and European Parliament changing the proposal?
Both co-legislators confirm open science as a shared priority, but push the detail differently. The Council’s 26 June 2026 partial negotiating position builds on, rather than dilutes, the Commission’s partnership provisions, adding governance and transparency detail and explicitly reinforcing the ten-year data-retention requirement. Parliament’s ITRE committee, via rapporteurs Ehler and Repasi, has focused more on partnership structure than open science mechanics, but Repasi’s draft report adds independent scientific advisory oversight and a two-yearly consolidated performance report to Parliament and Council — strengthening accountability indirectly.
The sharpest live disagreement concerns who gets to participate in open, collaborative research at all. Article 10 of the proposed European Competitiveness Fund, a companion instrument linked to FP10, introduces an “EU preference” logic for advanced technology collaboration. Louise Drogoul of the Cesaer university association warned in an April 2026 Science|Business viewpoint that importing this logic into FP10’s research strands risks “a chilling effect” on international collaboration, arguing for proportionate, case-by-case security screening over default restriction.
| Provision | Horizon Europe (2021–2027) | FP10 Commission proposal (Jul 2025) | Council position (Jun 2026) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Open access to publications | Mandatory, immediate | Retained as core principle | Retained, no rollback proposed |
| Open access to research data | Mandatory (FAIR, “as open as possible”) | Retained, tied to partnership data strategies | Reinforced with governance detail |
| Data retention after project/partnership end | No fixed minimum | Minimum 10 years for partnership data | Confirmed and detailed |
| Research security vs. openness | Handled case-by-case via Annotated Grant Agreement | New EU-preference clause proposed via linked Competitiveness Fund | Still contested; not finalised |
| Open infrastructure (EOSC, ORE) | Built during 2021–2027 rollout | Continued investment framed as enabler | No major change signalled |
What are Science Europe, OpenAIRE and universities asking to change?
Science Europe’s FP10 position paper, “10 Key Messages” (5 July 2024), argues Horizon Europe’s overall structure, including its open science provisions, should be maintained rather than redesigned, since institutions have only just adjusted their systems to the current rules. A later statement, “Working Together for a Strong and Standalone FP10,” backs a dedicated, adequately resourced programme rather than one folded into industrial instruments. OpenAIRE’s guidance similarly treats the mandates as standard practice, centring its advocacy on protecting continuity of EOSC, ORE and EU Open Research Repository funding.
- Maintain both mandatory practices without weakening them for “competitiveness” reasons.
- Keep FP10 standalone and adequately funded, not subsumed into the Competitiveness Fund’s industrial logic.
- Continue and expand EOSC and ORE funding as shared infrastructure.
- Reform research assessment beyond Journal Impact Factor metrics, aligned with CoARA, so open practices are rewarded in FP10-funded careers.
- Resolve the security/openness tension through proportionate screening, not blanket restriction.
Answer-first Q&A on Horizon Europe open science
What is the open science policy in Horizon Europe?
Under Horizon Europe, open science is a legal obligation for grant beneficiaries, not a recommendation, requiring transparency and accessibility throughout the research lifecycle and early, wide sharing of knowledge, results and tools, subject to justified exceptions such as intellectual property and security.
What are the open science requirements in practice for Horizon Europe?
In practice, Horizon Europe sets two mandatory practices: immediate open access to peer-reviewed publications, and open access to the underlying research data under FAIR principles. Further practices, such as open peer review and citizen science, remain recommended rather than mandatory.
What are the criteria for open science?
UNESCO defines open science through linked elements: open access to publications and data, open infrastructures, and open engagement with society. Horizon Europe’s own criteria are narrower and legally binding, focused on the two mandatory practices above.
What are the eight pillars of open science?
The commonly cited taxonomy, from the FOSTER Open Science initiative and echoed in UNESCO’s 2021 Recommendation, groups practices into open access, open data, open source, open reproducible research, open evaluation, open educational resources, citizen science and open policymaking. FP10 negotiations so far focus almost entirely on the first two.
What this means for research offices — and what happens next
For institutions, the practical message is continuity with new compliance detail, not disruption. Research offices should not expect open access or open data mandates to disappear; expect the same two core obligations, a new ten-year retention duty for any European Partnership participation, and closer scrutiny of international collaborations under whatever research-security text survives trilogue.
The open question institutions cannot yet plan around is how far the “EU preference” and research-security provisions in the linked Competitiveness Fund will bleed into FP10’s research strands, which depends on trilogue between the Council, Parliament and Commission, expected through 2027. Research administrators, including EARMA and INORMS members, should track the converging Council and Parliament texts rather than the July 2025 Commission proposal alone, since both co-legislators have already moved the detail.
What is not in dispute across the Commission, Council, Parliament, Science Europe and OpenAIRE is the principle itself: open science remains the default for EU-funded research through at least 2034. The fight still to be settled is over how open, for whom, and under what safeguards.
Teams tracking these obligations may also find it useful to review broader research administration practice as funder open science mandates converge, and the underlying terminology in the open science dictionary when briefing colleagues on FAIR data and open access.
Leave a Reply