The Research Quality Symposium, held from September 18-20, 2025, in Žumberak Nature Park, brought together researchers, publishers, funders, librarians, and early-career scientists to address critical challenges facing contemporary research.
Funded by the Croatian Science Foundation's EcoOpen project (HRZZ-IP-2022-10-2872) and hosted by Dr. Antica Čulina of the Ruđer Bošković Institute, the event fostered vital conversations about transparency, reproducibility, and the future of scientific practice.
Key Themes and Insights
Measuring Research Quality
The symposium opened with fundamental questions about how we assess research quality. Speakers emphasized that effective measurement must balance multiple dimensions: reproducibility, methodological rigor, and peer review mechanisms. However, participants acknowledged that creating universal standards remains challenging, as disciplinary variation makes one-size-fits-all indicators unrealistic. While some funders think in terms of return on investment, most research outcomes resist simple economic measurement. Instead, impact manifests through knowledge dissemination, novelty, and contributions to theory and practice.
Reproducibility and Open Science
Plenary speaker Dr. Tracey Weissgerber presented the innovative TREASURE program at the University of Coimbra, which rewards graduate students for implementing reproducible, reusable, and open research practices in their thesis work. This approach addresses a critical gap by normalizing open science practices early in researchers' careers, extending benefits beyond individual students to their entire research groups.
The symposium highlighted both the promise and challenges of open science. When asked to imagine a world where everything is open, panelists identified significant benefits: enhanced transparency and accountability, broader reusability of data and methods, opportunities for AI-driven discovery, and pressure to maintain high methodological standards. However, they also acknowledged serious challenges, including information overload, technical barriers requiring stronger computational support, and the need for responsible data sharing practices that respect both utility and ethics.
Evidence Synthesis and Meta-Research
Several presentations examined how we synthesize scientific evidence. Professor Livia Puljak explored the paradoxical role of systematic reviews, which serve as essential tools for evidence-based practice yet can contribute to research waste when poorly justified or duplicative. Dr. Alfredo Sánchez-Tójar presented findings from community-driven meta-research projects revealing substantial shortcomings in open science practices across ecology and evolution, including low rates of data and code sharing and limited use of pre-registration.
Dr. Danijela Žanko's simulation study compared Open Data Meta-Analysis against Classical Meta-Analysis, examining whether meta-analyzing raw open data can overcome the systematic biases, including publication bias and p-hacking, that plague traditional approaches. These presentations underscored the urgent need for methodological rigor in evidence synthesis.
Publishing and Research Assessment
The symposium dedicated significant attention to scholarly publishing's evolving landscape. Dr. Jadranka Stojanovski discussed Diamond Open Access publishing, a community-driven, non-commercial model that eliminates fees for both authors and readers. Through initiatives like the European Diamond Capacity Hub, the community is working to support journals that maintain quality while remaining accessible and equitable.
Iva Grabarić Andonovski emphasized the importance of diversity, equity, and inclusivity (DEI) principles and Sustainable Development Goals in research publishing, arguing that these factors are as critical as data quality for achieving responsible and impactful research.
On research assessment reform, Dr. Stojanovski presented the Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA), which promotes fairer evaluation systems that value quality, openness, collaboration, and diverse contributions, including mentoring, peer review, data sharing, and societal impact, rather than relying solely on journal impact factors or rankings.
Research Integrity Challenges
Luka Ursić presented concerning findings about image manipulation in research, demonstrating that both students and experts struggle to detect duplications in published scientific images. This problem, exacerbated by paper mills and AI-based tools, highlights the need for better detection systems and training.
Associate Professor Ksenija Baždarić discussed attitudes toward preprinting among Croatian researchers, presenting it as one potential solution to research waste and a step toward greater scientific openness, though adoption remains uneven.
Dr. Ivica Vilibić offered two cautionary tales about how "publish or perish" pressures distort research practices, examining both the Croatian context, where personal gain drives researchers toward rapid-review journals, and global responses to catastrophic events, where races to publish in prestigious journals raise questions about research integrity.
The Croatian Context
A dedicated roundtable focused on Croatia's specific challenges and opportunities. Participants identified several critical barriers to research quality:
Systemic Issues: Hyperinflation and fragmentation of projects scatter researchers across multiple initiatives. Negative selection processes mean too many university employees work in research without genuine commitment. Universities cannot hire dedicated research scientists; all employees must maintain teaching connections, limiting research capacity.
Infrastructure Gaps: Institutions lack adequate support systems for researchers, from administrative assistance to funding for small expenses. Participants suggested government-funded support staff could reduce administrative burdens.
Policy Challenges: Croatia's highly top-down system limits flexibility, with the Ministry setting rules and universities simply complying. Researchers remain insufficiently involved in policy discussions and rarely act as active participants in shaping science policy. Crucially, Croatia has not clearly defined its core national research priorities, with current implicit goals appearing to emphasize employment, power, and funding distribution rather than scientific excellence.
Disciplinary Barriers: Publishing strictly within one's discipline is required for academic promotion, creating obstacles for interdisciplinary research. While discipline-specific boards formally evaluate such work, the rigid system allows little room for innovation.
Regarding open science implementation, participants noted that while Croatia signed DORA (Declaration on Research Assessment), it has not signed CoARA. The Croatian Science Foundation may adopt a controversial approach: penalizing researchers who don't adopt open science practices rather than rewarding those who do.
Looking Forward
The symposium concluded with practical workshops on reproducible manuscripts using Quarto and automated assessment of transparency in scientific literature, equipping participants with concrete tools to implement open science practices.
The discussions revealed a community committed to improvement but facing substantial systemic challenges. From redefining research assessment to strengthening infrastructure and involving researchers meaningfully in policy discussions, the path forward requires coordinated action across institutions, funders, publishers, and individual researchers. By starting open science education earlier, supporting Diamond Open Access models, and fostering genuine collaboration, the Croatian research community can work toward a more transparent, reproducible, and impactful scientific system.
