This blog is part of a 7-part series produced within the LIBER Cascading Grants project, part of LIBER’s participation in Knowledge Rights 21.
By Liudmyla Trotsenko (ORCID) and Jędrzej Leśniewski (ORCID), Wrocław University of Science and Technology, Poland
This blog is based on the report, “From Roadmap to Reality: Building Open Research,” available on Zenodo: Read the Full Report on Zenodo
People, guidance and a shared route to help researchers navigate Open Research Data
The Missing Door
Every university has policies. Many have repositories. Some have guidelines.
But when a researcher is finishing a project report and suddenly asks, “Where should I put my data?”, where is the door?
This was the question we started hearing at Wrocław University of Science and Technology. Not always directly. Not always in the language of “Research Data Management”. More often, the questions came as urgent practical appeals: What does the funder expect? Which repository should I choose? What if the data cannot be fully open? Who can help me decide?
Open Research Data had moved from an Open Science principle into everyday research work. Yet for many researchers, the route was still unclear.
This is the story of how we began before everything was ready.
The Map Arrived through the Unite!Widening Project
Our starting point was not perfect infrastructure. It was a map – and we helped draw it.
As a member of the Unite! University Alliance, the University participated in the Unite!Widening project, which aimed, among other objectives, to advance and implement Open Science practices in Widening-country universities. In EU research-policy language, “Widening” means broadening participation in Research and Innovation by strengthening capacity in countries with lower R&I performance and participation.
Within Unite!Widening, we contributed to the Unite! white paper: A new university open science and innovation strategic roadmap for Widening Countries. Together with its Open Science and Innovation Action Plan for 2025–2027, it gave us more than strategic language. It gave us a practical way to think about institutional change: policies, services, training, infrastructure and skills.
But a roadmap is not yet a road. The road had to be made locally.
People before Perfection
The work in Unite! Widening helped us bring a bottom-up Open Science argument into institutional discussions: if researchers are expected to manage and share data responsibly, they need a visible place to get support.
As a result, in January 2025, the Library established a new Open Science Department. Within it, we created the Open Research Data Section: a small organisational home for a new kind of service.
The challenge was immediate. Qualified data stewards are not easy to find on the labour market, and the service had to be developed within existing institutional resources. So we chose a home-grown path.
We started with librarians willing to grow into a new role. We invested in human development: specialist training, mentoring, protected time to build new competencies, and peer learning with more experienced data stewards from other universities. They also joined the Polish Open Science Competence Network – Data Steward PL, helping us stay connected with national discussions and emerging practices.
For the first months, the work was less visible from the outside. But this was necessary. Data stewardship cannot be created only by changing job titles. It needs knowledge, confidence, language and trust.
A Route Researchers Could Actually Use
At the beginning, we considered launching our own institutional repository for research data and other research outputs. It sounded attractive. It also sounded expensive.
After discussions and cost analysis, we made a different choice. Instead of building another system and then persuading researchers to use it, we focused on guidance: helping researchers understand how to manage, document and share data, and how to choose the right route.
One important route became RepOD, a shared Polish research data repository. In July 2025, we launched our institutional collection. RepOD was not the whole answer. It was one practical option: trusted, available and, with local curation, easier for researchers to use.
Our data stewards became curators of the institutional collection. They verify submissions, support researchers in the deposit process and help make the route smoother. In some cases, this makes a real difference. One researcher chose RepOD after waiting more than two months for a response from a disciplinary repository.
Sometimes impact looks exactly like this: a blocked route becomes a usable one.
Going Where Decisions Happen
We also learned that a webpage is not enough.
If researchers meet data requirements only at the end of a project, support comes too late. That is why cooperation with the University Project Department became essential. Our data stewards now participate in training sessions before major National Science Centre (NCN) calls, when Data Management Plans (DMPs) and data-sharing questions are already on researchers’ minds.
This changes the timing of support. Instead of asking only, “What can I do with my data now?”, researchers can begin to ask earlier: “How should data be managed from the start?”
We prepared guidelines for completing DMPs according to NCN requirements. Then we went further: we began visiting faculties with short workshops on research data management in NCN projects. By mid-2026, we had met with four faculties, with more meetings planned.
The message was simple: you do not have to solve this alone. The Library is a service – use it.
What Changed
Our service is still young. The team is small. The offer is basic compared with more mature RDM services at some institutions. Some questions, especially those involving sensitive data, legal interpretation or discipline-specific standards, still require other experts.
But the change is real.
Researchers now have a clear “front door” for data-related questions. DMPs can be discussed before submission, not only corrected under pressure. RepOD has become a more visible and trusted route for sharing datasets.
Research data are also beginning to enter institutional documentation thinking through DONA – the University system, powered by the Library, for documenting research outputs. This helps keep deposited datasets visible, traceable and reportable as part of the University’s research output.
And the Library’s role is changing. We are not only providing access to resources. We are helping researchers manage, share, document and make their outputs visible.
Our aim is not to “do FAIR” to researchers. It is to do FAIR with researchers: to show that metadata, licences, repository choice and documentation are not just requirements, but conditions for reuse, visibility and research quality.
Lessons Learned
Open Research Data support does not become real when everything is ready.
It becomes real when researchers know where to start – and when the Library is ready to start with them.
For us, that meant beginning with what was possible: a small team, growing expertise, a shared repository route, cooperation with project support, faculty outreach and a clear service point inside the Library.
In Widening-country contexts, perfect conditions may not come first. But a library can still make a difference by becoming visible, useful and reachable.
A policy says what should happen. A repository provides a place. But between requirement and action, researchers need people.
That is where the Library can stand.
LIBER Cascading Grants Collection