GrantWise
HORIZON EUROPE TOPIC · Widening participation and strengthening the ERA

Pillar I: Facilitating development of institutional open access policies through the retention of intellectual property rights

HORIZON-WIDERA-2027-05-ERA-01 — the expected outcomes as checkable statements, what evaluators look for in this topic, and the conditions that shape the proposal.

Get the free Part B working draft for this topic ↓

ForthcomingCSA · lump sumDeadline 11 March 2027around EUR 2 million per project

GrantWise › Horizon Europe topics › HORIZON-WIDERA-2027-05-ERA-01

TopicHORIZON-WIDERA-2027-05-ERA-01
StatusForthcoming
CallHORIZON-WIDERA-2027-05 — Enhancing the European R&I system
DestinationReforming and enhancing the EU research and innovation system (2026-27)
Type of actionCoordination and Support Actions · lump sum
Opening8 December 2026
Deadline11 March 2027
Budgetaround EUR 2 million per project · 1 project expected · EUR 2 million in total
Part B page limit28 pages (standard application form; check your call)
TemplateWork Programme 2026–2027 application form

Expected outcomes

Projects should contribute to all of the expected outcomes. The topic says: “Proposals will deliver on the impact “A more open, equitable and inclusive research and innovation ecosystem”, contributing to the ERA Structural Policy “Enabling open science via sharing and re-use of data, including through the European Open Science Cloud (EOSC)”. Project results are expected to contribute to all of the following expected outcomes:”

  1. EO1 Increased number of EU research performing organisations (RPOs) with well-developed policies on open access publications, which include clause(s) for rights retention.
  2. EO2 Higher share of research publications in open access across the EU and Associated Countries, especially in low-performing countries with respect to open access.
  3. EO3 Increase of access to and preservation of scientific information through institutional infrastructures, such as repositories.

Expected impacts named in the destination

The wider, long-term effects the destination seeks. Your outcomes feed them; they are not project deliverables.

  1. EI1 Effective and sustainable structural institutional changes aligned with the ERA priorities.
  2. EI2 Sustainable ecosystems established around the ERA priorities through enhanced cooperation, coordination and alignment.
  3. EI3 Increased trust in science and alignment of R&I with society’s needs.
  4. EI4 Strengthened evidence base for advancing the implementation of the ERA.
  5. EI5 Increased reproducibility, trustworthiness and transparency of scientific research.
  6. EI6 A more open, equitable and inclusive research and innovation ecosystem.
  7. EI7 A research ethics and integrity ecosystem continually enhanced with robust methodologies that encourage benefit sharing and prevent ethics dumping.
  8. EI8 Systemic reform of research assessment through the recognition of the diverse outputs, practices, and activities which maximise the quality and impact of research.
  9. EI9 Improved research careers and mobility, based on the European framework for research careers, fostering knowledge flows and career interoperability across sectors and countries.
  10. EI10 Stronger translation of R&I results into society and economy.
  11. EI11 Enhanced gender equality and inclusiveness, leading to research excellence and more innovative, socially relevant, and economically impactful outcomes.
  12. EI12 Increased uptake, effectiveness and impact of environmentally sustainable research.

What evaluators will look for in this topic

Expected outcomes

  • Projects should contribute to all of the expected outcomes.
  • For each outcome (EO1 to EO3), name who will use or adopt your results (a specific group, not “industry” or “society”), how they get them, and the indicator that shows the change, with baseline, target and date.
  • Use the topic's own words for each outcome, so the evaluator can tick it off.

What the scope asks for

Evaluators check the proposal against these sentences of the scope. Answer each one visibly, in the call's own words.

  • “Proposals should enable RPOs to adopt and/or expand their policies on open access and rights retention tailored to specific national legal and policy contexts.”
  • “They should also consider related issues such as research assessment and its reform, the costs of providing open access, and different disciplinary practices and needs, among others.”
  • “To achieve the expected outcomes, proposals should address at least the activities outlined below and propose any additional, complementary activities:.”

Conditions that shape the proposal

  • Part B, sections 1–3: 28 pages (standard application form). Text beyond the limit is not read; tables and figures count.
  • Lump sum: the budget is fixed per work package and paid when each work package is completed. Every work package needs activities and deliverables an evaluator can verify, and the effort must match the money.
  • Coordination and support action: no research is funded. Evaluators look for coordination, networking, dissemination or policy support with a clear audience.
  • Other Eligible Conditions: “Applications must be submitted by a consortium including participation, as beneficiaries, of at least three independent legal entities: Each established in a different Member State or Associated Country; and two of which are established in a Member State.”

Impact pathway and traps

  • Open science or data practices are named. Make the data management plan concrete: which data, which repository, when.
  • Policy or regulation is in scope. Name the policy owners you will reach and what you will give them.
  • Keep outputs, outcomes and impacts apart: what you deliver, what changes when others use it, and the long-term effect.
  • For each destination impact you claim, show which of your outcomes feeds it. Destination impacts are long-term effects, not project deliverables.
  • Name the barriers outside the project (regulation, markets, user behaviour) that could block uptake, and what you will do if they do.
  • Section 2.3 (the summary canvas) is optional on this call; the old split into scientific, economic and societal impact is no longer required.
The scope, as published

While the EU is making progress on its open access objectives, recent reports show that there is still significant room for improvement. There is variable progress across Member States and Associated Countries, and less growth in open access through repositories compared to open access publishing. Rights retention strategies, embedded in institutional or funder policies and requirements, have been identified as non-legislative measures with very good potential to support the uptake of open access. At the same time, such strategies empower researchers and institutions to safeguard their rights. The cOAlition S of research funders has supported the implementation of relevant policies among funding organisations to enable open access, while research institutions in some EU and Associated Countries have started to implement rights retention strategies and policies with increasing success. This topic aims to support RPOs across the EU to work strategically on rights retention policies to boost open access and reuse of scientific information. Proposals should enable RPOs to adopt and/or expand their policies on open access and rights retention tailored to specific national legal and policy contexts. They should also consider related issues such as research assessment and its reform, the costs of providing open access, and different disciplinary practices and needs, among others. Consortia may comprise RPOs, libraries, policy-makers, funders, and others. To achieve the expected outcomes, proposals should address at least the activities outlined below and propose any additional, complementary activities: Develop networks of research institutions working towards aligned institutional policies to enable open access through rights retention; Produce comprehensive guidance, tools and training materials, and document lessons learnt and best practice to support RPOs to adopt and expand policies on rights retention; Design strategies to maximise approval and adoption of rights retention and open access policies by researchers. Rights retention means that authors or their institutions retain copyright and sufficient rights over scholarly works under publication to make them immediately available and reusable under an open license, that is a CC BY or equivalent license, independent of publisher policies. Such rights retention may apply to either the final publishable form (Version of Record) and/or the version accepted for publication, including all changes made during the peer review process (Author Accepted Manuscript).

Other topics in HORIZON-WIDERA-2027-05

Source and attribution

Topic text from the official topic page on the EU Funding & Tenders Portal, retrieved 19 October 2026. © European Union, reused under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU (CC BY 4.0). Changes: the expected outcomes and impacts are split into numbered statements, long passages are shortened, and the evaluator checklist is GrantWise's own commentary. Your call and the Work Programme always win; check them before you submit. GrantWise is independent and not affiliated with, endorsed by, or acting on behalf of the European Commission.