Center for Open Science, Inc.

Charlottesville, VA   |
GuideStar Charity Check

Center for Open Science, Inc.

EIN: 46-1496217


Our mission is to increase openness, integrity, and reproducibility of research.

Ruling year info


Co-founder, Executive Director

Brian Nosek

Main address

210 Ridge McIntire Road Suite 500

Charlottesville, VA 22903 USA

Show more contact info



Subject area info


Population served info


NTEE code info

Science and Technology Research Institutes, Services N.E.C. (U99)

What we aim to solve

SOURCE: Self-reported by organization

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

SOURCE: Self-reported by organization

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.

Population(s) Served

SHARE is building a free, open, data set about research and scholarly activities across their life cycle.

Population(s) Served

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.

Population(s) Served

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.

Population(s) Served

Where we work

Our results

SOURCE: Self-reported by organization

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


Goals & Strategy

SOURCE: Self-reported by organization

Learn about the organization's key goals, strategies, capabilities, and progress.

Charting impact

Four powerful questions that require reflection about what really matters - results.

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.

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 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.

COS accomplishments are noted in the Impact Summary, and future goals are noted in the Goals section.

How we listen

SOURCE: Self-reported by organization

Seeking feedback from people served makes programs more responsive and effective. Here’s how this organization is listening.

done We demonstrated a willingness to learn more by reviewing resources about feedback practice.
done We shared information about our current feedback practices.
  • 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

Revenue vs. expenses:  breakdown

SOURCE: IRS Form 990 info
Note: When component data are not available, the graph displays the total Revenue and/or Expense values.

Liquidity in 2020 info

SOURCE: IRS Form 990


Average of 1.23 over 8 years

Months of cash in 2020 info

SOURCE: IRS Form 990


Average of 12.6 over 8 years

Fringe rate in 2020 info

SOURCE: IRS Form 990


Average of 18% over 8 years

Funding sources info

Source: IRS Form 990

Assets & liabilities info

Source: IRS Form 990

Financial data

Source: IRS Form 990 info

Center for Open Science, Inc.

Revenue & expenses

Fiscal Year: Jan 01 - Dec 31

SOURCE: IRS Form 990

Fiscal year ending: cloud_download Download Data

Center for Open Science, Inc.

Balance sheet

Fiscal 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 ending: cloud_download Download Data

Center for Open Science, Inc.

Financial trends analysis Glossary & formula definitions

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


The people, governance practices, and partners that make the organization tick.

Form 1023/1024 is not available for this organization

Co-founder, Executive Director

Brian Nosek

Number of employees

Source: IRS Form 990

Center for Open Science, Inc.

Officers, directors, trustees, and key employees

SOURCE: IRS Form 990

Show data for fiscal year
Compensation data
Download up to 5 most recent years of officer and director compensation data for this organization

Center for Open Science, Inc.

Highest paid employees

SOURCE: IRS Form 990

Show data for fiscal year
Compensation data
Download up to 5 most recent years of highest paid employee data for this organization

Center for Open Science, Inc.

Board of directors
as of 02/28/2023
SOURCE: Self-reported by organization
Board of directors data
Download the most recent year of board of directors data for this organization
Board chair

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

SOURCE: Self-reported by organization

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

SOURCE: Self-reported; last updated 9/29/2022

Who works and leads organizations that serve our diverse communities? Candid partnered with CHANGE Philanthropy on this demographic section.


The organization's leader identifies as:

Race & ethnicity
Gender identity
Male, Not transgender (cisgender)
Sexual orientation
Heterosexual or straight
Disability status
Person without a disability

Race & ethnicity

Gender identity


Sexual orientation


No data


Fiscal year ending
There are no fundraisers recorded for this organization.