The core premise is straightforward: science produces knowledge, but the way that knowledge circulates is governed by conventions that were established in an era of print journals, small laboratories, and slow communication. Those conventions persist even though the underlying infrastructure has been transformed. Preprint servers, open-access repositories, collaborative platforms, and data-sharing mandates have removed many of the technical barriers to rapid, transparent dissemination. Yet, as the commentary emphasizes, the cultural expectations surrounding credit, career advancement, and publication have not kept pace. Researchers still face powerful incentives to hoard data, to slice findings into the least publishable units, and to prioritize novelty over rigor, because those behaviors are what traditional evaluation systems reward.

Knowledge sharing sits at the center of the argument. The authors contend that openness should not be framed as an additional burden placed on already stretched researchers, but as a redesign of the default workflow. When data, code, protocols, and negative results are shared as a matter of routine, the entire enterprise becomes more efficient and more trustworthy. Other teams can verify findings, reuse materials, and avoid duplicating failed experiments. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses become more complete because the file drawer problem, in which unflattering results disappear from the literature, is mitigated at the source. The commentary suggests that institutions can accelerate this shift by embedding sharing requirements into grant conditions, laboratory onboarding, and graduate training, so that open practices become habitual rather than heroic.

Training emerges as a recurring theme throughout the piece. Cultural change in research, the authors argue, cannot be imposed from the top down alone; it must be cultivated in the next generation of scientists. Doctoral programs and early-career mentoring shape the professional identities of researchers more powerfully than any policy document. If mentorship continues to signal that impact factors and first-author papers in prestigious venues are the only currency that matters, then open-science mandates will remain symbolic. Conversely, when senior researchers model transparent practices, discuss failures openly, and reward careful replication work, junior scientists receive a coherent message about what constitutes good science. The commentary calls for structured programs that teach not only technical skills but also the norms of collaborative, reproducible research.

Evaluation reform receives equally sustained attention. The piece situates its argument within the broader international movement, exemplified by initiatives such as the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment and the Leiden Manifesto, that seeks to move institutions away from crude journal-level metrics as proxies for individual quality. The authors argue that evaluation systems function as the immune system of research culture: they determine which behaviors are accepted and which are rejected. As long as hiring, promotion, and funding decisions hinge on publication counts and journal prestige, researchers will rationally optimize for those signals, even at the expense of rigor, openness, and collegiality. Alternative approaches, including narrative curricula vitae, portfolio-based assessment, and explicit weighting of contributions such as peer review, mentoring, data curation, and community service, are presented as practical mechanisms for broadening the definition of scientific merit.

The commentary is careful to acknowledge that evaluation reform is difficult precisely because metrics are convenient. Quantitative indicators allow committees to compare large numbers of candidates quickly and appear objective. Replacing them with qualitative judgment requires time, training, and trust in evaluators. The authors respond that the apparent objectivity of citation counts conceals well-documented distortions, including field differences, self-reinforcing citation networks, and susceptibility to gaming. A more honest system, they suggest, would combine structured qualitative assessment with responsible use of quantitative evidence, applied at the level of individual contributions rather than journal brands. Several funding agencies and universities have already begun experimenting with such frameworks, and the commentary argues that these experiments should be evaluated with the same empirical rigor that scientists demand in their own research.

Community engagement forms the third pillar of the proposed cultural transformation. The authors argue that research culture is not confined to the walls of academia; it extends to how scientists relate to the public, to practitioners, and to the communities affected by their work. Participatory research models, citizen science, and co-design approaches are highlighted as strategies that both improve the relevance of research and redistribute epistemic authority. When patients, teachers, policymakers, or community members help formulate research questions, the resulting studies are more likely to address genuine needs, and the findings are more likely to be trusted and used. Engagement, in this framing, is not a dissemination afterthought but a constitutive part of the scientific process that begins at the stage of question selection.

The piece also addresses the structural conditions that make cultural change possible. Individual researchers, however motivated, operate within systems shaped by institutions, funders, publishers, and learned societies. The commentary therefore advocates coordinated action across these actors: funders can align grant criteria with open practices; institutions can reform promotion guidelines; publishers can support transparent peer review and registered reports; and societies can convene communities to develop shared norms. The authors emphasize that partial, fragmented reforms risk producing cynicism, since researchers asked to adopt new practices without corresponding changes in evaluation will experience openness as a cost with no return. Alignment across the system is presented as the decisive factor separating genuine transformation from superficial compliance.

Importantly, the commentary treats research culture as an empirically tractable subject. Rather than exhortation alone, the authors call for studying cultural interventions themselves: measuring whether particular mentoring programs, assessment reforms, or engagement strategies actually change behavior, improve reproducibility, or increase public trust. This meta-scientific stance reflects the broader movement toward the science of science, in which the research enterprise becomes an object of systematic investigation. By applying the same standards of evidence to cultural interventions that are applied to laboratory experiments, the field can learn which strategies work, under what conditions, and for whom, and can avoid investing in well-intentioned initiatives that fail in practice.

The appearance of this argument in npj Science of Learning is itself significant, since the journal sits at the intersection of education, psychology, and neuroscience, fields that have confronted reproducibility challenges directly and that depend heavily on public trust to justify their societal value. The commentary’s message is ultimately one of cautious optimism: research culture is not an immutable inheritance but a set of practices that scientists themselves created and can therefore remake. By aligning knowledge sharing, evaluation, and community engagement, the authors contend, the research enterprise can become more rigorous, more equitable, and more responsive to the societies that sustain it, provided that institutions, funders, and individual researchers act together rather than waiting for others to move first.

Subject of Research: Strategies for fostering cultural change in the research enterprise through knowledge sharing, research evaluation reform, and community engagement

Article Title: Fostering cultural change in research through innovative knowledge sharing, evaluation, and community engagement strategies

Article References: Rho, J., Sheu, J.-K., Forbes, A., Tsai, D. P., Alú, A., Li, W., Brongersma, M. L., Choi, J., Garcia de Abajo, F. J., Na Liu, L., Szameit, A., Schloemer, T., Tittl, A., Chemnitz, M., Wang, C., Zhang, J., Kivshar, Y., Cui, T. J., Ma, R.-M., … Matricardi, C. (2026). Fostering cultural change in research through innovative knowledge sharing, evaluation, and community engagement strategies. npj Science of Learning, 11(1), Article 49. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-026-00449-z

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1038/s41539-026-00449-z

Keywords: research culture, open science, knowledge sharing, research evaluation, research assessment, community engagement, reproducibility, npj Science of Learning, academic incentives, citizen science, narrative CV, meta-science