Center for Open Science, Inc.
EIN: 46-1496217
Mission
Our mission is to increase openness, integrity, and reproducibility of research.
Ruling year
2014
Co-founder, Executive Director
Brian Nosek
Main address
210 Ridge McIntire Road Suite 500
Charlottesville, VA 22903 USA
EIN
46-1496217
Science
Population served
Adults
NTEE code
Science and Technology Research Institutes, Services N.E.C. (U99)
IRS subsection
501(c)(3) Public Charity
IRS filing requirement
This organization is required to file an IRS Form 990 or 990-EZ.
Tax forms
Communication
Programs and results
Reports and documents
Download annual reports Download other documentsWhat we aim to solve
Openness and reproducibility are core values of scholarship. Scholarly claims become credible via transparent communication of the supporting evidence and the process of acquiring that evidence. Increasing the openness and reproducibility of science will increase the efficiency and quality of knowledge accumulation and application. Increasing access to the content and process of producing research outcomes will increase reproducibility of the evidence, and facilitate replication and extension into new domains. False leads will be discovered and discarded more quickly; true leads will be elaborated more efficiently. Increasing access to research outcomes will facilitate inclusivity of all individuals with motivation, skill, and insight to contribute new knowledge and facilitate application of knowledge to solving humanity’s pressing problems.
Our programs
What are the organization's current programs, how do they measure success, and who do the programs serve?
Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology
The RP:CB is an initiative to conduct direct replications of 50 high-impact cancer biology studies. The project anticipates learning more about predictors of reproducibility, common obstacles to conducting replications, and how the current scientific incentive structure affects research practices by estimating the rate of reproducibility in a sample of published cancer biology literature. The RP:CB is a collaborative effort between the Center for Open Science and network provider Science Exchange.
SHARE: SHared Access Research Ecosystem
SHARE is building a free, open, data set about research and scholarly activities across their life cycle.
Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines
Transparency, open sharing, and reproducibility are core values of science, but not always part of daily practice. Journals, funders, and scholarly societies can increase reproducibility of research by adopting the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines and helping them evolve to meet the needs of researchers and publishers while pursuing the most transparent practices.
Open Science Framework (OSF)
The Open Science Framework (OSF) provides free and open source project management support for researchers across the entire research lifecycle. As a collaboration tool, the OSF helps researchers work on projects privately with a limited number of collaborators and make parts of their projects public, or make all the project publicly accessible for broader dissemination. As a workflow system, the OSF enables connections to the many services researchers already use to streamline their process and increase efficiency. As a flexible repository, it can store and archive research data, protocols, and materials.
Where we work
External reviews
Our results
How does this organization measure their results? It's a hard question but an important one.
Number of OSF registered users
This metric is no longer tracked.Totals By Year
Related Program
Open Science Framework (OSF)
Type of Metric
Output - describing our activities and reach
Direction of Success
Increasing
Goals & Strategy
Reports and documents
Download strategic planLearn about the organization's key goals, strategies, capabilities, and progress.
Charting impact
Four powerful questions that require reflection about what really matters - results.
What is the organization aiming to accomplish?
Our big picture goals are ambitious:
- All scholarly content is preserved, connected, and versioned to foster discovery, accumulation of evidence, and respect for uncertainty.
- Scholarly service providers are incentivized to compete on quality of service and maximizing transparency of process and content.
- Institutions evaluate researchers based on both the content of their discoveries and the process by which they were discovered.
- Funders have full insight into the activity and outcomes of their research investments to more efficiently achieve their mission and guide future investments.
- Researchers prioritize getting it right over getting it published, and receive credit for scholarly contributions beyond the research article such as generating useful data or authoring code that can be reused by others.
- Reviewers provide feedback at all stages of the research lifecycle and openness introduces potential for credit and reputation enhancement for reviewing.
- Librarians apply curation and data management expertise throughout the research lifecycle, not just retrospectively.
- Consumers have easy access to the evidence supporting scholarly claims.
- All stakeholders are included and respected in the research lifecycle.
What are the organization's key strategies for making this happen?
To meet its mission, COS pursues the tasks outlined in the global roadmap with five activities:
- Metascience - Acquiring evidence to encourage change.
- Infrastructure - Building technology to enable change.
- Training - Disseminating knowledge to enact change.
- Incentives - Providing reasons to embrace change.
- Community - Fostering connection and inclusion to propagate change.
What are the organization's capabilities for doing this?
What started as a small project is now a team of more than 50 employees; we have a suite of free, open products and services to support researchers, journals, funders, institutions, and societies; and we have established dozens of collaborations with stakeholders across disciplines and stakeholder communities.
What have they accomplished so far and what's next?
COS accomplishments are noted in the Impact Summary, and future goals are noted in the Goals section.
How we listen
Seeking feedback from people served makes programs more responsive and effective. Here’s how this organization is listening.
-
Who are the people you serve with your mission?
We serve all involved in scientific research and those who benefit from it. Open Science Framework (OSF) is available to anyone anywhere in the world with internet access and at no charge.
-
How is your organization using feedback from the people you serve?
To identify and remedy poor client service experiences, To identify bright spots and enhance positive service experiences, To make fundamental changes to our programs and/or operations, To inform the development of new programs/projects, To identify where we are less inclusive or equitable across demographic groups, To strengthen relationships with the people we serve, To understand people's needs and how we can help them achieve their goals
-
What significant change resulted from feedback?
Registrations were originally conceptualized as a frozen, time-stamped documentation of a research team’s research plan and/or data analysis plan. However, the community highlighted that this did not reflect unanticipated changes that come from conducting research. COS conducted research across different community stakeholders to better understand their goals, needs, perceptions, and motivation. We learned updates need to retain the original time-stamped concept, but introduce more flexibility to document updates or changes. This would help researchers report what actually happened in a study, increasing transparency, credibility, and replicability. The release received high praise from the community, becoming one of COS’s most retweeted tweets.
-
Which of the following feedback practices does your organization routinely carry out?
We collect feedback from the people we serve at least annually, We take steps to get feedback from marginalized or under-represented people, We aim to collect feedback from as many people we serve as possible, We take steps to ensure people feel comfortable being honest with us, We look for patterns in feedback based on people’s interactions with us (e.g., site, frequency of service, etc.), We engage the people who provide feedback in looking for ways we can improve in response, We act on the feedback we receive, We tell the people who gave us feedback how we acted on their feedback, We ask the people who gave us feedback how well they think we responded
-
What challenges does the organization face when collecting feedback?
We don't have any major challenges to collecting feedback
Financials
Financial documents
Download audited financialsRevenue vs. expenses: breakdown
Liquidity in 2020 info
1.36
Months of cash in 2020 info
9.2
Fringe rate in 2020 info
18%
Funding sources info
Assets & liabilities info
Center for Open Science, Inc.
Revenue & expensesFiscal Year: Jan 01 - Dec 31
SOURCE: IRS Form 990
Center for Open Science, Inc.
Balance sheetFiscal Year: Jan 01 - Dec 31
SOURCE: IRS Form 990
The balance sheet gives a snapshot of the financial health of an organization at a particular point in time. An organization's total assets should generally exceed its total liabilities, or it cannot survive long, but the types of assets and liabilities must also be considered. For instance, an organization's current assets (cash, receivables, securities, etc.) should be sufficient to cover its current liabilities (payables, deferred revenue, current year loan, and note payments). Otherwise, the organization may face solvency problems. On the other hand, an organization whose cash and equivalents greatly exceed its current liabilities might not be putting its money to best use.
Fiscal Year: Jan 01 - Dec 31
SOURCE: IRS Form 990
This snapshot of Center for Open Science, Inc.’s financial trends applies Nonprofit Finance Fund® analysis to data hosted by GuideStar. While it highlights the data that matter most, remember that context is key – numbers only tell part of any story.
Created in partnership with
Business model indicators
| Profitability info | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unrestricted surplus (deficit) before depreciation | $194,430 | $243,272 | $116,103 | $409,007 | $456,623 |
| As % of expenses | 3.4% | 3.6% | 2.1% | 8.1% | 7.1% |
| Unrestricted surplus (deficit) after depreciation | $55,275 | $102,297 | -$20,719 | $329,286 | $416,048 |
| As % of expenses | 0.9% | 1.5% | -0.4% | 6.4% | 6.4% |
| Revenue composition info | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total revenue (unrestricted & restricted) | $5,890,429 | $6,994,472 | $5,783,888 | $5,468,200 | $6,846,966 |
| Total revenue, % change over prior year | 21.1% | 18.7% | -17.3% | -5.5% | 25.2% |
| Program services revenue | 0.1% | 2.5% | 3.7% | 1.4% | 4.9% |
| Membership dues | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Investment income | 0.1% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.7% | 0.2% |
| Government grants | 4.3% | 15.5% | 16.6% | 38.2% | 58.0% |
| All other grants and contributions | 95.5% | 82.1% | 79.6% | 58.9% | 36.8% |
| Other revenue | 0.0% | -0.1% | 0.0% | 0.8% | 0.1% |
| Expense composition info | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total expenses before depreciation | $5,708,101 | $6,792,232 | $5,652,381 | $5,067,966 | $6,438,124 |
| Total expenses, % change over prior year | 27.4% | 19.0% | -16.8% | -10.3% | 27.0% |
| Personnel | 76.8% | 75.9% | 75.3% | 78.2% | 63.1% |
| Professional fees | 3.8% | 2.8% | 2.2% | 2.5% | 2.9% |
| Occupancy | 4.1% | 3.7% | 4.4% | 5.0% | 4.2% |
| Interest | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Pass-through | 0.1% | 0.4% | 2.4% | 1.4% | 0.6% |
| All other expenses | 15.2% | 17.1% | 15.8% | 12.9% | 29.2% |
| Full cost components (estimated) info | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total expenses (after depreciation) | $5,847,256 | $6,933,207 | $5,789,203 | $5,147,687 | $6,478,699 |
| One month of savings | $475,675 | $566,019 | $471,032 | $422,331 | $536,510 |
| Debt principal payment | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| Fixed asset additions | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| Total full costs (estimated) | $6,322,931 | $7,499,226 | $6,260,235 | $5,570,018 | $7,015,209 |
Capital structure indicators
| Liquidity info | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Months of cash | 6.7 | 4.5 | 7.1 | 8.8 | 9.2 |
| Months of cash and investments | 7.3 | 5.1 | 7.7 | 9.7 | 10.0 |
| Months of estimated liquid unrestricted net assets | 0.9 | 1.2 | 1.7 | 2.8 | 3.3 |
| Balance sheet composition info | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cash | $3,184,537 | $2,572,945 | $3,332,868 | $3,723,841 | $4,938,106 |
| Investments | $272,746 | $313,778 | $298,374 | $357,288 | $415,873 |
| Receivables | $210,740 | $109,187 | $189,696 | $295,042 | $478,320 |
| Gross land, buildings, equipment (LBE) | $758,576 | $740,290 | $740,290 | $742,913 | $742,913 |
| Accumulated depreciation (as a % of LBE) | 35.3% | 51.3% | 69.7% | 80.2% | 85.7% |
| Liabilities (as a % of assets) | 77.6% | 69.6% | 75.2% | 70.5% | 70.8% |
| Unrestricted net assets | $938,030 | $1,040,327 | $1,019,608 | $1,348,894 | $1,764,942 |
| Temporarily restricted net assets | $0 | $0 | $0 | N/A | N/A |
| Permanently restricted net assets | $0 | $0 | $0 | N/A | N/A |
| Total restricted net assets | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| Total net assets | $938,030 | $1,040,327 | $1,019,608 | $1,348,894 | $1,764,942 |
Key data checks
| Key data checks info | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Material data errors | No | No | No | No | No |
Operations
The people, governance practices, and partners that make the organization tick.
Documents
Co-founder, Executive Director
Brian Nosek
Number of employees
Source: IRS Form 990
Center for Open Science, Inc.
Officers, directors, trustees, and key employeesSOURCE: IRS Form 990
Compensation data
Center for Open Science, Inc.
Highest paid employeesSOURCE: IRS Form 990
Compensation data
Center for Open Science, Inc.
Board of directorsas of 02/28/2023
Board of directors data
Alison Mudditt
CEO, Public Library of Science (PLOS)
Alison Mudditt
Public Library of Science, CEO; COS Board Vice Chair
Jon Hill
Investure, LLC, Managing Director; COS Board Treasurer
Dr. Marcia McNutt
National Academy of Sciences, President
Dr. Rebecca Saxe
BCS at MIT, Professor of Cognitive Science
Dr. Brian Nosek
Center for Open Science, Executive Director and Co-Founder (Ex-Officio)
Dr. Arturo Casadevall
Chair, Molecular Microbiology & Immunology; Alfred & Jill Sommer Professor and Chair; Bloomberg Distinguished Professor; Johns Hopkins University
Dr. George Banks
Associate Professor of Management, University of North Carolina Charlotte
Dr. Lara Mangravite
Sage Bionetworks, President
Dr. Elaine Chen
Cummings Professor of the Practice of Entrepreneurship, Tufts University; Director of Tufts Entrepreneurship Center, Tufts Gordon Institute; Founder and Managing Director, ConceptSpring
Ms. Elaine Westbrooks
Vice Provost for University Libraries and University Librarian, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Dr. Maryrose Franko
Executive Director of the Health Research Alliance (HRA)
Dr. Susanna-Assunta Sansone
Professor of Data Readiness; Associate Director, Oxford e-Research Centre; and Academic Lead for Research Practice, University of Oxford
Board leadership practices
GuideStar worked with BoardSource, the national leader in nonprofit board leadership and governance, to create this section.
-
Board orientation and education
Does the board conduct a formal orientation for new board members and require all board members to sign a written agreement regarding their roles, responsibilities, and expectations? Yes -
CEO oversight
Has the board conducted a formal, written assessment of the chief executive within the past year ? Yes -
Ethics and transparency
Have the board and senior staff reviewed the conflict-of-interest policy and completed and signed disclosure statements in the past year? Yes -
Board composition
Does the board ensure an inclusive board member recruitment process that results in diversity of thought and leadership? Yes -
Board performance
Has the board conducted a formal, written self-assessment of its performance within the past three years? Yes
Organizational demographics
Who works and leads organizations that serve our diverse communities? Candid partnered with CHANGE Philanthropy on this demographic section.
Leadership
The organization's leader identifies as:
Race & ethnicity
Gender identity
Sexual orientation
Disability
No data
Contractors
Fiscal year endingGuideStar Pro Reports
Report successfully added to your cart!
Want more data?
A GuideStar Pro report containing the following information is available for this organization:
- Email contact information
- Financial trends metrics for five most recent years 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016*
- Financial statements for 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017
- Letter of Determination
- Officer and/or Employee data for 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016
- Contractor and/or Paid Preparer data for 2020, 2019, 2018
- Board of Directors data for 2023
- *with the ability to download the data for 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016
Download it now for $125.
Need the ability to download nonprofit data and more advanced search options?Consider a Pro Search subscription.