PLATINUM2024

Center for Open Science, Inc.

Charlottesville, VA   |  https://cos.io/
GuideStar Charity Check

Center for Open Science, Inc.

EIN: 46-1496217


Mission

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

Ruling year info

2014

Co-founder, Executive Director

Brian Nosek

Main address

210 Ridge McIntire Road Suite 500

Charlottesville, VA 22903 USA

Show more contact info

EIN

46-1496217

Subject area info

Science

Population served info

Adults

NTEE code info

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

What we aim to solve

SOURCE: Self-reported by organization

The Center for Open Science (COS) exists to increase openness, integrity, and reproducibility of research. The academic research enterprise is beset by culture, systems, markets, and institutional structures that create a gap between scholarly values and the policies, incentives, and norms that shape behavior. This creates friction in the pace of discovery to advance knowledge, solutions, and cures. COS is a culture change organization that aims to align scholarly values with scholarly practices. It does so by developing and advancing a systems-level strategy for changing culture and behavior toward greater rigor, transparency, and sharing of research process, outputs, and outcomes.

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?

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.

Population(s) Served
Adults

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

Population(s) Served

Assessing the credibility of research claims is a central and continuous part of the scientific process. However, current assessment strategies often require substantial time and effort. To accelerate research progress, the Center for Open Science (COS) partnered with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's (DARPA) program Systematizing Confidence in Open Research and Evidence (SCORE) in 2019 on work towards developing and deploying automated tools that provide rapid, scalable, and accurate confidence scores for research claims.

Since then, COS has completed extraction of scientific claims from a stratified sample of social-behavioral science papers. In total 7,066 claims were extracted manually, enabling confidence scores to be assigned by human forecasters and algorithms. Concurrently, COS worked with hundreds of researchers to conduct replications and reproductions on a subset of these extracted claims.

Population(s) Served
Adults

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
Adults

Journal policies can be evaluated based on the degree to which they comply with the TOP Guidelines. This TOP Factor is a metric that reports the steps that a journal is taking to implement open science practices, practices that are based on the core principles of the scientific community. It is an alternative way to assess journal qualities, and is an improvement over traditional metrics that measure mean citation rates. The TOP Factor is transparent (see underlying data and the evaluation rubric) and will be responsive to community feedback.

Population(s) Served
Adults

Where we work

Awards

The Einstein Foundation Award 2021

Einstein Foundation

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

Increasing

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.

We envision a future scholarly community in which:

The process, content, and outcomes of research are openly accessible by default;
All scholarly content is preserved and discoverable, and openness, interoperability, and transparency are normative for scholarly services;
All stakeholders are included and respected in the research lifecycle; and
All stakeholders share pursuit of truth as the primary incentive and motivation for scholarship.

Achieving the mission requires culture change in the incentives that drive researchers’ behavior, the infrastructure that supports research, and the business models that dominate scholarly communication.

To scale sustainable adoption of open behaviors by researchers, COS:

1. provides open infrastructure that makes it possible to do the behaviors,
2. conducts user-centered product development to make it easy to do the behaviors,
3. supports grassroots organizing to activate and train adopters and make their behavior
visible to shift community norms toward the behaviors,
4. offers solutions to journals, funders, and institutions to nudge incentives to make it
desirable to do the behaviors, and
5. provides and promotes a policy framework for stakeholders to make the behaviors
required.

What started as a small project in Charlottesville, Virginia in the United States, has evolved to be a more distributed
workforce with more than 50 employees. COS is committed to openness and treating scholarly research and the infrastructure supporting it as public goods. All COS produced data, materials, code, and reports are openly licensed and publicly accessible to the maximum extent possible. COS made its progress with a dedicated, diverse, and skilled core staff, and, critically, thousands of individual researchers and stakeholders who provided time, energy, and action as a service because of their shared vision for improving the research culture. COS’s contributions outstrip its staff size and resources because of the collaborative partnerships with so many groups across the research landscape.

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.
  • 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

  • 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
NET GAIN/LOSS:    in 
Note: When component data are not available, the graph displays the total Revenue and/or Expense values.

Liquidity in 2022 info

SOURCE: IRS Form 990

1.34

Average of 1.26 over 10 years

Months of cash in 2022 info

SOURCE: IRS Form 990

17.8

Average of 13.3 over 10 years

Fringe rate in 2022 info

SOURCE: IRS Form 990

21%

Average of 18% over 10 years

Funding sources info

Source: IRS Form 990

Assets & liabilities info

Source: IRS Form 990

Financial data

SOURCE: IRS Form 990

Center for Open Science, Inc.

Revenue & expenses

Fiscal Year: Jan 01 - Dec 31

SOURCE: IRS Form 990 info

Fiscal year ending: cloud_download Download Data

Center for Open Science, Inc.

Balance sheet

Fiscal Year: Jan 01 - Dec 31

SOURCE: IRS Form 990 info

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 info

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 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Unrestricted surplus (deficit) before depreciation $116,103 $409,007 $456,623 $1,226,005 $734,576
As % of expenses 2.1% 8.1% 7.1% 19.7% 10.8%
Unrestricted surplus (deficit) after depreciation -$20,719 $329,286 $416,048 $1,192,176 $616,526
As % of expenses -0.4% 6.4% 6.4% 19.1% 8.9%
Revenue composition info
Total revenue (unrestricted & restricted) $5,783,888 $5,468,200 $6,846,966 $7,385,775 $7,585,203
Total revenue, % change over prior year -17.3% -5.5% 25.2% 7.9% 2.7%
Program services revenue 3.7% 1.4% 4.9% 3.6% 4.4%
Membership dues 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Investment income 0.0% 0.7% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0%
Government grants 16.6% 38.2% 58.0% 41.3% 36.8%
All other grants and contributions 79.6% 58.9% 36.8% 46.9% 58.8%
Other revenue 0.0% 0.8% 0.1% 8.1% 0.0%
Expense composition info
Total expenses before depreciation $5,652,381 $5,067,966 $6,438,124 $6,220,636 $6,818,941
Total expenses, % change over prior year -16.8% -10.3% 27.0% -3.4% 9.6%
Personnel 75.3% 78.2% 63.1% 64.1% 69.3%
Professional fees 2.2% 2.5% 2.9% 6.6% 5.1%
Occupancy 4.4% 5.0% 4.2% 4.4% 2.1%
Interest 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Pass-through 2.4% 1.4% 0.6% 7.4% 1.1%
All other expenses 15.8% 12.9% 29.2% 17.5% 22.3%
Full cost components (estimated) info 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Total expenses (after depreciation) $5,789,203 $5,147,687 $6,478,699 $6,254,465 $6,936,991
One month of savings $471,032 $422,331 $536,510 $518,386 $568,245
Debt principal payment $0 $0 $0 $600,675 $0
Fixed asset additions $0 $0 $0 $0 $420,338
Total full costs (estimated) $6,260,235 $5,570,018 $7,015,209 $7,373,526 $7,925,574

Capital structure indicators

Liquidity info 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Months of cash 7.1 8.8 9.2 14.8 17.8
Months of cash and investments 7.7 9.7 10.0 15.7 18.5
Months of estimated liquid unrestricted net assets 1.7 2.8 3.3 5.6 5.6
Balance sheet composition info 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Cash $3,332,868 $3,723,841 $4,938,106 $7,650,716 $10,132,910
Investments $298,374 $357,288 $415,873 $474,995 $394,741
Receivables $189,696 $295,042 $478,320 $1,309,854 $1,466,040
Gross land, buildings, equipment (LBE) $740,290 $742,913 $742,913 $742,913 $1,075,093
Accumulated depreciation (as a % of LBE) 69.7% 80.2% 85.7% 90.2% 65.1%
Liabilities (as a % of assets) 75.2% 70.5% 70.8% 69.3% 71.4%
Unrestricted net assets $1,019,608 $1,348,894 $1,764,942 $2,957,118 $3,573,644
Temporarily restricted net assets $0 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Permanently restricted net assets $0 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total restricted net assets $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total net assets $1,019,608 $1,348,894 $1,764,942 $2,957,118 $3,573,644

Key data checks

Key data checks info 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Material data errors No No No No No

Operations

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

Documents
Form 1023/1024 is not available for this organization

Co-founder, Executive Director

Brian Nosek

Brian Nosek’s research and applied interests are to understand how people and systems produce values-misaligned behavior; to develop, implement, and evaluate solutions to align behavior with values; and, to improve research methods and culture to accelerate progress in science. Brian co-developed the Implicit Association Test, a method that advanced research and public interest in implicit bias. Brian is Executive Director of COS and a professor at the University of Virginia. Brian received his undergraduate degree in Psychology with minors in Computer Science and Women’s Studies from Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo in 1995, and his PhD in Psychology from Yale in 2002. He received honorary doctorates in science from Ghent University (2019) and University of Bristol (2022).

Number of employees

Source: IRS Form 990

Center for Open Science, Inc.

Officers, directors, trustees, and key employees

SOURCE: IRS Form 990

Compensation
Other
Related
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

Compensation
Other
Related
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 01/24/2024
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 10/26/2023

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
White/Caucasian/European
Gender identity
Male, Not transgender
Sexual orientation
Heterosexual or Straight
Disability status
Person without a disability

Race & ethnicity

Gender identity

Transgender Identity

Sexual orientation

Disability

Equity strategies

Last updated: 10/20/2023

GuideStar partnered with Equity in the Center - an organization that works to shift mindsets, practices, and systems to increase racial equity - to create this section. Learn more

Policies and processes
  • We use a vetting process to identify vendors and partners that share our commitment to race equity.
  • We help senior leadership understand how to be inclusive leaders with learning approaches that emphasize reflection, iteration, and adaptability.
  • We measure and then disaggregate job satisfaction and retention data by race, function, level, and/or team.

Contractors

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