{ "route": "bottomup-v2", "sourceBuiltAt": "2026-09-04T17:33:22.699Z", "rule": "A claim group belongs to the cluster formed from its representative text; fragments below the four-group floor are unassigned.", "method": "complete-link agglomerative on cosine (pinned gemini-embedding-001, star representatives); cut = merges with height ≥ 0.74 and size ≤ 100, recursive; clusters under 4 stars are residue (unclustered)", "parameters": { "link": "complete", "threshold": 0.74, "cap": 100, "floor": 4 }, "interpretation": "Detected membership in a semantic cluster. Whole-cluster document totals do not measure each narrower named subposition.", "themes": [ { "id": "bu-001", "kind": "convergence", "name": "Research data, code, and publications should be openly shared and freely accessible to all.", "definition": "Members hold that research outputs—data, code, software, protocols, workflows, and publications—should be made open, findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable (FAIR), ideally immediately and under open licenses, so that others can verify, replicate, and build on the work. Many members ground this obligation in public funding (taxpayers paid for it, so the public and scientific community should benefit) or frame open knowledge as a public good, commons, or human right that everyone should be able to access, use, and contribute to. It excludes positions about who bears the cost of openness (e.g., article processing charges), peer-review or publishing-model reform, specific repository/infrastructure governance mechanisms, or credit/authorship practices — those are adjacent but distinct concerns. A new position belongs here if its central claim is that some research output should be made open/shared/reusable, or that open access to knowledge is a good/right/entitlement; it does not belong if it is primarily about funding openness, evaluating researchers, or infrastructure governance rather than the sharing/openness claim itself.", "coherence": "medium", "subpositions": [ { "statement": "Data, code, and materials should follow FAIR principles for reuse.", "members": [ 0, 39, 42, 44, 50, 54, 55, 62, 20, 60 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0298/c18", "osft-doc-1869/c248", "osft-doc-1869/c249", "osft-doc-1197/c19", "osft-doc-1301/c16", "osft-doc-0963/c11", "osft-doc-1869/c246", "osft-doc-0645/c121", "osft-doc-1150/c20", "open-science-source-42/c638" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "All parts of the research object should be preserved and shared.", "members": [ 3, 10, 14, 17, 52, 15, 25 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-06/c169", "osft-doc-1869/c225", "open-science-source-06/c172", "open-science-source-06/c173", "osft-doc-1373/c398", "open-science-source-21/c38", "open-science-source-09/c44" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Publicly funded research and its outputs must be freely accessible to the public.", "members": [ 4, 9, 36, 37, 43, 56, 57, 64, 65, 49, 40 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-24-c6/c14", "osft-doc-1459/c347", "osft-doc-0900/c25", "osft-doc-0114/c13", "osft-doc-1283/c69", "osft-doc-1737/c30", "osft-doc-1373/c140", "osft-doc-0504/c6", "open-science-source-34/c9", "osft-doc-1373/c298", "open-science-source-23/c59" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Knowledge and access to it is a public good, commons, or human right.", "members": [ 27, 30, 35, 48, 58, 59, 61, 67 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-04/c153", "open-science-source-04/c154", "osft-doc-1373/c242", "open-science-source-24-c2/c2", "open-science-source-24-c2/c1", "open-science-source-24-c1/c4", "open-science-source-24-c8/c3", "open-science-source-02/c39" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Sharing outputs immediately, without delay, is required.", "members": [ 2, 26, 32, 47, 11 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-29/c1", "osft-doc-0971/c54", "open-science-source-28/c9", "open-science-source-24-c2/c31", "open-science-source-20/c14" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Open sharing of materials enables reproducibility and reduces wasted effort.", "members": [ 10, 24, 34, 38, 45, 63, 69, 13 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1869/c225", "osft-doc-1171/c12", "osft-doc-1459/c362", "open-science-source-24-c1/c73", "osft-doc-1449/c47", "osft-doc-1459/c363", "osft-doc-0971/c2", "open-science-source-24-c9/c16" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Openness must be practical, not merely nominal, requiring real accessibility.", "members": [ 33, 53, 25, 20 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0020/c74", "open-science-source-09/c43", "open-science-source-09/c44", "osft-doc-1150/c20" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" } ], "outliers": [ { "rep": "osft-doc-1373/c164", "text": "A comprehensive set of mechanisms that allow fully open research processes to public participation should be created.", "why": "Focuses on public participation mechanisms in research process, not on sharing outputs" }, { "rep": "open-science-source-42/c638", "text": "Standardisation of data management and sharing is required for AE systems to access a broad range of data.", "why": "Narrow technical claim about AE-system data standardisation rather than general openness" }, { "rep": "osft-doc-1373/c180", "text": "Research institutes should openly share institute-level data and metrics on research activities, records and behaviour.", "why": "About institutes sharing operational metrics/behaviour data, not research outputs" }, { "rep": "open-science-source-02/c39", "text": "Open access is not an end in itself, but a means to further ends.", "why": "Meta-commentary that open access is a means not an end, not itself a sharing claim" }, { "rep": "open-science-source-54-c1/c51", "text": "Research teams need to value and promote data sharing from the project's beginning.", "why": "About team culture/valuing sharing, not the sharing obligation itself" } ], "clusterStats": { "size": 71, "claims": 267, "documents": 86, "meanIntraCos": 0.849, "minIntraCos": 0.777 }, "starIds": [ "open-science-source-24-c2/c2", "osft-doc-1459/c347", "open-science-source-29/c1", "open-science-source-24-c2/c1", "osft-doc-0020/c74", "osft-doc-0020/c75", "open-science-source-24-c10/c9", "osft-doc-0020/c56", "open-science-source-24-c1/c4", "open-science-source-24-c8/c3", "open-science-source-34/c9", "osft-doc-1869/c225", "osft-doc-0825/c21", "osft-doc-1869/c246", "osft-doc-0645/c121", "osft-doc-1459/c354", "osft-doc-1459/c34", "osft-doc-1869/c249", "osft-doc-0114/c13", "osft-doc-0298/c18", "osft-doc-1399/c15", "open-science-source-21/c38", "osft-doc-0963/c11", "open-science-source-24-c6/c14", "osft-doc-1373/c398", "osft-doc-1869/c248", "open-science-source-24-c2/c56", "osft-doc-1283/c69", "osft-doc-1737/c30", "osft-doc-0114/c18", "osft-doc-1459/c362", "osft-doc-0971/c54", "osft-doc-1301/c16", "open-science-source-06/c172", "open-science-source-06/c173", "open-science-source-54-c1/c51", "osft-doc-1195/c1", "osft-doc-1373/c164", "osft-doc-1373/c242", "open-science-source-20/c14", "osft-doc-1150/c20", "osft-doc-0900/c25", "osft-doc-1047/c60", "osft-doc-1449/c47", "osft-doc-1673/c10", "open-science-source-24-c2/c52", "open-science-source-04/c154", "open-science-source-24-c9/c16", "osft-doc-0504/c6", "osft-doc-1373/c298", "open-science-source-06/c169", "open-science-source-23/c59", "open-science-source-28/c9", "osft-doc-0971/c2", "open-science-source-02/c39", "open-science-source-04/c153", "open-science-source-09/c31", "open-science-source-09/c43", "open-science-source-09/c44", "open-science-source-19/c31", "open-science-source-24-c1/c73", "open-science-source-24-c2/c31", "open-science-source-42/c638", "osft-doc-0504/c5", "osft-doc-0504/c8", "osft-doc-1171/c12", "osft-doc-1197/c19", "osft-doc-1373/c140", "osft-doc-1373/c180", "osft-doc-1459/c363", "osft-doc-1507/c136" ], "clusterMemberOrder": [ "osft-doc-0298/c18", "open-science-source-24-c2/c52", "open-science-source-29/c1", "open-science-source-06/c169", "open-science-source-24-c6/c14", "osft-doc-1673/c10", "osft-doc-0020/c56", "osft-doc-1459/c34", "osft-doc-1459/c354", "osft-doc-1459/c347", "osft-doc-1869/c225", "open-science-source-20/c14", "open-science-source-24-c2/c56", "open-science-source-24-c9/c16", "open-science-source-06/c172", "open-science-source-21/c38", "osft-doc-1195/c1", "open-science-source-06/c173", "open-science-source-24-c10/c9", "open-science-source-19/c31", "osft-doc-1150/c20", "osft-doc-1507/c136", "osft-doc-1399/c15", "osft-doc-0114/c18", "osft-doc-1171/c12", "open-science-source-09/c44", "osft-doc-0971/c54", "open-science-source-04/c153", "open-science-source-09/c31", "osft-doc-1373/c180", "open-science-source-04/c154", "osft-doc-1047/c60", "open-science-source-28/c9", "osft-doc-0020/c74", "osft-doc-1459/c362", "osft-doc-1373/c242", "osft-doc-0900/c25", "osft-doc-0114/c13", "open-science-source-24-c1/c73", "osft-doc-1869/c248", "open-science-source-23/c59", "osft-doc-1373/c164", "osft-doc-1869/c249", "osft-doc-1283/c69", "osft-doc-1197/c19", "osft-doc-1449/c47", "open-science-source-54-c1/c51", "open-science-source-24-c2/c31", "open-science-source-24-c2/c2", "osft-doc-1373/c298", "osft-doc-1301/c16", "osft-doc-0020/c75", "osft-doc-1373/c398", "open-science-source-09/c43", "osft-doc-0963/c11", "osft-doc-1869/c246", "osft-doc-1737/c30", "osft-doc-1373/c140", "open-science-source-24-c2/c1", "open-science-source-24-c1/c4", "open-science-source-42/c638", "open-science-source-24-c8/c3", "osft-doc-0645/c121", "osft-doc-1459/c363", "osft-doc-0504/c6", "open-science-source-34/c9", "osft-doc-0504/c8", "open-science-source-02/c39", "osft-doc-0825/c21", "osft-doc-0971/c2", "osft-doc-0504/c5" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 71, "claims": 267, "documents": 86 } }, { "id": "bu-002", "kind": "mixed", "name": "Open science depends on interoperable, sustainable, FAIR-compliant infrastructure like repositories and open-source software", "definition": "Members hold that practising open science requires technical and social infrastructure — repositories, persistent identifiers, open-source software stacks, and interoperable platforms — that is sustainably funded, community-governed, and built to FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) standards. Many members restate or apply the FAIR principles themselves, describe the role of institutional repositories or named initiatives (OpenAIRE, EOSC, SCOSS) in enabling discovery and preservation, or call for open-source software to replace proprietary tools. It does NOT include positions about who funds publishing (APCs), peer-review or preprint workflow policies, intellectual-property law, research-assessment credit reform, or CARE/Indigenous-data-governance principles, even though these sometimes co-occur with infrastructure language.", "coherence": "medium", "subpositions": [ { "statement": "Open science needs interoperable, sustainably funded, community-governed infrastructure.", "members": [ 0, 2, 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, 18, 20, 22, 28, 30, 35, 48, 56, 66 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0730/c76", "open-science-source-37-c1/c109", "osft-doc-1193/c57", "open-science-source-21/c78", "open-science-source-03/c191", "osft-doc-0050/c29", "osft-doc-0150/c36", "open-science-source-03/c197", "open-science-source-10/c187", "open-science-source-37-c2/c10", "osft-doc-1646/c48", "open-science-source-03/c100", "open-science-source-10/c162", "open-science-source-53/c14", "open-science-source-53/c21", "osft-doc-0020/c68" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "FAIR principles should govern findability, accessibility, interoperability and reuse of outputs.", "members": [ 1, 3, 7, 8, 11, 19, 24, 26, 27, 29, 33, 36, 45, 50, 53, 58, 72, 73 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-05/c73", "open-science-source-05/c72", "open-science-source-37-c2/c145", "osft-doc-0730/c72", "open-science-source-37-c2/c146", "open-science-source-21/c35", "open-science-source-05/c39", "osft-doc-1507/c11", "open-science-source-06/c175", "osft-doc-1283/c93", "open-science-source-05/c69", "open-science-source-05/c49", "osft-doc-1507/c143", "osft-doc-1283/c136", "osft-doc-0645/c76", "osft-doc-1507/c107", "osft-doc-1507/c142", "osft-doc-1507/c12" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Institutional repositories and platforms like OpenAIRE/EOSC improve discoverability and preservation.", "members": [ 4, 17, 23, 44, 52, 55, 59, 61, 62 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-05/c16", "open-science-source-38/c70", "open-science-source-24-c3/c14", "osft-doc-1373/c101", "osft-doc-1373/c138", "open-science-source-24-c3/c15", "open-science-source-24-c1/c30", "osft-doc-1373/c139", "open-science-source-37-c1/c115" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Open-source software should be adopted in place of proprietary tools.", "members": [ 9, 41, 42, 47, 54, 57, 64, 66 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-03/c191", "open-science-source-37-c1/c48", "open-science-source-24-c8/c6", "osft-doc-1373/c26", "open-science-source-54-c3/c11", "osft-doc-1373/c77", "osft-doc-1459/c355", "osft-doc-0020/c68" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Reproducibility requires standardized, well-resourced, user-friendly infrastructure and training.", "members": [ 10, 37, 38, 39, 46, 49 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0050/c185", "osft-doc-0050/c182", "osft-doc-0050/c184", "osft-doc-0050/c186", "osft-doc-0050/c180", "osft-doc-0050/c181" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" } ], "outliers": [ { "rep": "open-science-source-03/c22", "text": "Existing international legal frameworks on intellectual property rights, including the rights of scientists to their scientific productions, are important.", "why": "About intellectual property law, not infrastructure" }, { "rep": "open-science-source-26/c53", "text": "These factors continue to affect how ethical and socially responsible data use can occur within the sciences, particularly as machine learning approaches accelerate data re-use.", "why": "About ethical/social data-use concerns, not infrastructure" }, { "rep": "open-science-source-26/c70", "text": "The CARE Principles and tools like the TK Labels have important implications for international policy frameworks such as the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Nagoya Protocol.", "why": "About CARE principles and Indigenous-data policy frameworks" }, { "rep": "open-science-source-39/c42", "text": "Several major publishers have updated their journal policies' language to align with the TOP framework.", "why": "About publisher policy language aligning with TOP, not infrastructure" }, { "rep": "osft-doc-1373/c621", "text": "Elsevier and Springer Nature (via Digital Science) appear to be developing services spanning the entire research workflow, from discovery through to funding.", "why": "Describes commercial publisher business strategy" }, { "rep": "open-science-source-15-c2/c57", "text": "cOAlition S organisations may advance open peer review through supportive policies.", "why": "About peer review policy, unrelated to infrastructure" }, { "rep": "open-science-source-15-c2/c56", "text": "cOAlition S organisations may advance preprint posting through supportive policies.", "why": "About preprint posting policy, not infrastructure" }, { "rep": "osft-doc-0296/c29", "text": "For the purposes of research assessment, institutions should consider the value and impact of all research outputs, including datasets and software, in addition to research publications.", "why": "About research assessment criteria, not infrastructure" }, { "rep": "osft-doc-1459/c357", "text": "Software and code should be formally recognised as a research output, along with research articles, data, and metadata.", "why": "About credit/recognition for software, not infrastructure itself" }, { "rep": "osft-doc-1283/c74", "text": "The development of policies to guarantee compliance with the EU Open Access mandate must happen in ways that are sensitive to disciplinary differences, the financial investment required and fast-changing publishing systems.", "why": "About EU Open Access mandate compliance policy" } ], "clusterStats": { "size": 77, "claims": 236, "documents": 74, "meanIntraCos": 0.831, "minIntraCos": 0.762 }, "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1193/c57", "open-science-source-37-c1/c109", "open-science-source-24-c3/c15", "osft-doc-0020/c68", "open-science-source-21/c35", "open-science-source-24-c3/c14", "open-science-source-37-c2/c10", "osft-doc-0730/c76", "open-science-source-05/c39", "osft-doc-0150/c36", "open-science-source-37-c1/c115", "osft-doc-1373/c149", "osft-doc-1373/c26", "osft-doc-1373/c502", "open-science-source-37-c2/c146", "osft-doc-1193/c105", "osft-doc-1283/c93", "open-science-source-05/c16", "osft-doc-1507/c142", "open-science-source-10/c162", "open-science-source-09/c40", "osft-doc-1373/c77", "osft-doc-1459/c355", "open-science-source-05/c81", "open-science-source-15-c2/c57", "open-science-source-38/c70", "open-science-source-53/c14", "osft-doc-1283/c136", "osft-doc-1373/c101", "osft-doc-1373/c138", "osft-doc-1373/c139", "osft-doc-1373/c621", "osft-doc-1646/c48", "open-science-source-26/c41", "osft-doc-1449/c379", "osft-doc-0296/c29", "osft-doc-0645/c76", "open-science-source-03/c197", "open-science-source-24-c8/c6", "osft-doc-0730/c72", "open-science-source-03/c191", "open-science-source-19/c34", "open-science-source-21/c78", "open-science-source-37-c2/c145", "osft-doc-1459/c357", "open-science-source-03/c100", "open-science-source-03/c22", "open-science-source-03/c314", "open-science-source-05/c43", "open-science-source-05/c49", "open-science-source-05/c69", "open-science-source-05/c72", "open-science-source-05/c73", "open-science-source-06/c175", "open-science-source-10/c187", "open-science-source-15-c2/c56", "open-science-source-24-c1/c30", "open-science-source-26/c53", "open-science-source-26/c70", "open-science-source-37-c1/c48", "open-science-source-39/c42", "open-science-source-53/c21", "open-science-source-54-c3/c11", "osft-doc-0050/c180", "osft-doc-0050/c181", "osft-doc-0050/c182", "osft-doc-0050/c184", "osft-doc-0050/c185", "osft-doc-0050/c186", "osft-doc-0050/c29", "osft-doc-0050/c46", "osft-doc-0633/c60", "osft-doc-1283/c74", "osft-doc-1507/c107", "osft-doc-1507/c11", "osft-doc-1507/c12", "osft-doc-1507/c143" ], "clusterMemberOrder": [ "osft-doc-0730/c76", "open-science-source-05/c73", "open-science-source-37-c1/c109", "open-science-source-05/c72", "open-science-source-05/c16", "osft-doc-1193/c57", "open-science-source-21/c78", "open-science-source-37-c2/c145", "osft-doc-0730/c72", "open-science-source-03/c191", "osft-doc-0050/c185", "open-science-source-37-c2/c146", "osft-doc-0050/c29", "osft-doc-0150/c36", "open-science-source-03/c314", "open-science-source-09/c40", "osft-doc-1193/c105", "open-science-source-38/c70", "open-science-source-03/c197", "open-science-source-21/c35", "open-science-source-10/c187", "osft-doc-1449/c379", "open-science-source-37-c2/c10", "open-science-source-24-c3/c14", "open-science-source-05/c39", "open-science-source-05/c43", "osft-doc-1507/c11", "open-science-source-06/c175", "osft-doc-1646/c48", "osft-doc-1283/c93", "open-science-source-03/c100", "osft-doc-0296/c29", "open-science-source-05/c81", "open-science-source-05/c69", "osft-doc-1459/c357", "open-science-source-10/c162", "open-science-source-05/c49", "osft-doc-0050/c182", "osft-doc-0050/c184", "osft-doc-0050/c186", "osft-doc-0633/c60", "open-science-source-37-c1/c48", "open-science-source-24-c8/c6", "open-science-source-19/c34", "osft-doc-1373/c101", "osft-doc-1507/c143", "osft-doc-0050/c180", "osft-doc-1373/c26", "open-science-source-53/c14", "osft-doc-0050/c181", "osft-doc-1283/c136", "open-science-source-15-c2/c57", "osft-doc-1373/c138", "osft-doc-0645/c76", "open-science-source-54-c3/c11", "open-science-source-24-c3/c15", "open-science-source-53/c21", "osft-doc-1373/c77", "osft-doc-1507/c107", "open-science-source-24-c1/c30", "osft-doc-1283/c74", "osft-doc-1373/c139", "open-science-source-37-c1/c115", "osft-doc-1373/c149", "osft-doc-1459/c355", "open-science-source-15-c2/c56", "osft-doc-0020/c68", "open-science-source-03/c22", "open-science-source-26/c41", "osft-doc-1373/c621", "osft-doc-1373/c502", "osft-doc-0050/c46", "osft-doc-1507/c142", "osft-doc-1507/c12", "open-science-source-26/c53", "open-science-source-26/c70", "open-science-source-39/c42" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 77, "claims": 236, "documents": 74 } }, { "id": "bu-003", "kind": "convergence", "name": "Open science and open access practices generate broad benefits for research and society", "definition": "Members assert that openness — sharing data, publications, code, and methods openly and early — produces positive outcomes: it accelerates discovery and innovation, increases transparency, trust, and reproducibility, fosters collaboration and new partnerships, improves efficiency and reduces redundant costs, broadens equitable access for the public and underrepresented researchers, and boosts visibility and citation of authors' work. It also includes claims that adoption of open practices by researchers, institutions, and governments is growing and widely supported. It excludes statements that merely define open access/open scholarship terminology without asserting a benefit, and excludes claims about specific implementation mechanisms (e.g., funding models, mandates, licensing terms) unless they are framed as producing one of these benefits.", "coherence": "medium", "subpositions": [ { "statement": "Openness accelerates the pace of research, discovery, and innovation.", "members": [ 0, 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, 18, 39, 45, 47, 51, 53, 62, 71, 88 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-19/c55", "open-science-source-19/c46", "osft-doc-1459/c352", "open-science-source-37-c1/c171", "osft-doc-1702/c73", "osft-doc-1373/c324", "osft-doc-1869/c222", "osft-doc-1213/c6", "osft-doc-1702/c53", "osft-doc-1459/c351", "open-science-source-34/c21", "osft-doc-1869/c63", "osft-doc-0114/c14", "osft-doc-1283/c15", "osft-doc-1702/c54", "open-science-source-12/c12", "osft-doc-0114/c7", "osft-doc-0825/c15" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Openness increases transparency, trust, and verifiability of research.", "members": [ 5, 16, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 36, 48, 57, 61, 66, 67, 74, 79, 81, 87 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0777/c21", "open-science-source-21/c4", "osft-doc-0441/c30", "osft-doc-1449/c50", "osft-doc-0975/c13", "open-science-source-21/c27", "osft-doc-1869/c188", "open-science-source-21/c10", "osft-doc-0105/c29", "osft-doc-1459/c14", "open-science-source-50/c29", "osft-doc-1449/c413", "open-science-source-05/c41", "osft-doc-0411/c60", "osft-doc-0730/c50", "osft-doc-0441/c18", "open-science-source-45/c141", "osft-doc-0441/c73" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Openness fosters collaboration and new research or economic partnerships.", "members": [ 8, 15, 22, 28, 43, 46, 52, 73, 85, 86 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-37-c1/c172", "open-science-source-21/c9", "osft-doc-1869/c236", "open-science-source-24-c5/c29", "osft-doc-1459/c368", "open-science-source-21/c26", "open-science-source-03/c34", "osft-doc-1373/c353", "osft-doc-1869/c149", "osft-doc-0975/c34" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Openness broadens equitable, inclusive access for the public and underserved groups.", "members": [ 4, 11, 26, 63, 64, 65, 69, 72, 82, 92, 96 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0441/c25", "osft-doc-1878/c29", "osft-doc-0633/c39", "open-science-source-20/c9", "open-science-source-24-c1/c13", "open-science-source-05/c46", "osft-doc-1878/c326", "open-science-source-02/c195", "open-science-source-03/c9", "open-science-source-02/c198", "osft-doc-0825/c64" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Adoption of open science practices is growing and widely supported.", "members": [ 21, 25, 56, 75, 80, 84, 89, 90, 97, 98 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-12/c209", "osft-doc-1327/c1049", "osft-doc-0441/c2", "osft-doc-0441/c44", "osft-doc-1646/c14", "open-science-source-19/c47", "open-science-source-19/c56", "osft-doc-1373/c491", "osft-doc-1399/c34", "osft-doc-0504/c45" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" } ], "outliers": [ { "rep": "osft-doc-1253/c20", "text": "Open access means providing access to the research itself.", "why": "Defines what open access means rather than claiming a benefit" }, { "rep": "open-science-source-25/c1", "text": "Open scholarship is the idea that, to advance knowledge, research results of all kinds should be openly shared as early as is practical.", "why": "Defines open scholarship as an idea rather than asserting an outcome" } ], "clusterStats": { "size": 99, "claims": 317, "documents": 69, "meanIntraCos": 0.86, "minIntraCos": 0.783 }, "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0441/c30", "open-science-source-19/c55", "osft-doc-1327/c1049", "osft-doc-0777/c21", "osft-doc-1283/c15", "open-science-source-37-c1/c172", "open-science-source-19/c46", "osft-doc-1646/c9", "open-science-source-12/c209", "osft-doc-1449/c478", "open-science-source-19/c52", "osft-doc-1327/c553", "osft-doc-1449/c413", "osft-doc-0138/c13", "osft-doc-0633/c39", "osft-doc-1373/c324", "open-science-source-19/c51", "osft-doc-1702/c73", "osft-doc-0441/c25", "open-science-source-04/c9", "open-science-source-15-c2/c111", "open-science-source-02/c198", "open-science-source-24-c1/c12", "open-science-source-24-c5/c29", "osft-doc-0441/c18", "open-science-source-02/c42", "osft-doc-1646/c13", "osft-doc-1869/c221", "osft-doc-0504/c12", "open-science-source-21/c10", "open-science-source-21/c4", "osft-doc-0441/c44", "osft-doc-1869/c188", "osft-doc-1869/c222", "osft-doc-0002/c8", "osft-doc-1459/c14", "open-science-source-34/c21", "osft-doc-1878/c29", "open-science-source-21/c26", "osft-doc-0105/c29", "open-science-source-45/c141", "osft-doc-0114/c14", "osft-doc-0441/c73", "osft-doc-0975/c13", "osft-doc-1193/c86", "osft-doc-1373/c161", "osft-doc-1646/c14", "osft-doc-1878/c326", "osft-doc-0441/c2", "osft-doc-1459/c352", "open-science-source-37-c1/c171", "osft-doc-1213/c6", "open-science-source-19/c56", "osft-doc-0975/c34", "open-science-source-21/c27", "open-science-source-24-c1/c13", "osft-doc-0411/c60", "osft-doc-1449/c415", "osft-doc-1459/c351", "open-science-source-03/c33", "open-science-source-03/c9", "osft-doc-0114/c7", "osft-doc-1253/c20", "osft-doc-1327/c617", "osft-doc-1449/c50", "osft-doc-1702/c54", "osft-doc-1869/c63", "open-science-source-03/c35", "osft-doc-1373/c470", "osft-doc-1702/c53", "open-science-source-02/c195", "open-science-source-02/c41", "open-science-source-03/c10", "open-science-source-03/c34", "open-science-source-05/c41", "open-science-source-05/c46", "open-science-source-05/c48", "open-science-source-12/c12", "open-science-source-15-c2/c110", "open-science-source-19/c47", "open-science-source-20/c9", "open-science-source-24-c1/c11", "open-science-source-25/c1", "open-science-source-50/c29", "osft-doc-0504/c14", "osft-doc-0504/c45", "osft-doc-0730/c50", "osft-doc-0825/c15", "osft-doc-0825/c46", "osft-doc-0825/c64", "osft-doc-1193/c76", "osft-doc-1373/c278", "osft-doc-1373/c353", "osft-doc-1373/c491", "osft-doc-1399/c34", "osft-doc-1459/c368", "osft-doc-1869/c149", "open-science-source-21/c9", "osft-doc-1869/c236" ], "clusterMemberOrder": [ "open-science-source-19/c55", "open-science-source-19/c46", "osft-doc-1459/c352", "open-science-source-37-c1/c171", "osft-doc-0441/c25", "osft-doc-0777/c21", "osft-doc-1702/c73", "osft-doc-1373/c324", "open-science-source-37-c1/c172", "osft-doc-1869/c222", "osft-doc-1213/c6", "osft-doc-1878/c29", "osft-doc-0002/c8", "osft-doc-1702/c53", "open-science-source-03/c33", "open-science-source-21/c9", "open-science-source-21/c4", "open-science-source-02/c42", "osft-doc-1459/c351", "osft-doc-1646/c9", "osft-doc-1449/c415", "open-science-source-12/c209", "osft-doc-1869/c236", "open-science-source-02/c41", "osft-doc-1327/c617", "osft-doc-1327/c1049", "osft-doc-0633/c39", "osft-doc-0441/c30", "open-science-source-24-c5/c29", "osft-doc-1449/c50", "osft-doc-0975/c13", "open-science-source-21/c27", "osft-doc-1869/c188", "osft-doc-1646/c13", "open-science-source-21/c10", "osft-doc-1193/c86", "osft-doc-0105/c29", "osft-doc-1253/c20", "osft-doc-1373/c470", "open-science-source-34/c21", "open-science-source-03/c10", "open-science-source-15-c2/c111", "open-science-source-24-c1/c12", "osft-doc-1459/c368", "open-science-source-25/c1", "osft-doc-1869/c63", "open-science-source-21/c26", "osft-doc-0114/c14", "osft-doc-1459/c14", "open-science-source-24-c1/c11", "osft-doc-0138/c13", "osft-doc-1283/c15", "open-science-source-03/c34", "osft-doc-1702/c54", "open-science-source-03/c35", "osft-doc-1449/c478", "osft-doc-0441/c2", "open-science-source-50/c29", "osft-doc-0825/c46", "open-science-source-05/c48", "open-science-source-19/c52", "osft-doc-1449/c413", "open-science-source-12/c12", "open-science-source-20/c9", "open-science-source-24-c1/c13", "open-science-source-05/c46", "open-science-source-05/c41", "osft-doc-0411/c60", "open-science-source-15-c2/c110", "osft-doc-1878/c326", "open-science-source-19/c51", "osft-doc-0114/c7", "open-science-source-02/c195", "osft-doc-1373/c353", "osft-doc-0730/c50", "osft-doc-0441/c44", "osft-doc-1869/c221", "osft-doc-1373/c278", "open-science-source-04/c9", "osft-doc-0441/c18", "osft-doc-1646/c14", "open-science-source-45/c141", "open-science-source-03/c9", "osft-doc-0504/c12", "open-science-source-19/c47", "osft-doc-1869/c149", "osft-doc-0975/c34", "osft-doc-0441/c73", "osft-doc-0825/c15", "open-science-source-19/c56", "osft-doc-1373/c491", "osft-doc-0504/c14", "open-science-source-02/c198", "osft-doc-1327/c553", "osft-doc-1193/c76", "osft-doc-1373/c161", "osft-doc-0825/c64", "osft-doc-1399/c34", "osft-doc-0504/c45" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 99, "claims": 317, "documents": 69 } }, { "id": "bu-004", "kind": "mixed", "name": "Multiple research actors should collaborate, adapt practices, and reap open science's societal benefits", "definition": "This cluster gathers many loosely related normative and empirical claims about the open-science ecosystem: that funders, institutions, publishers, libraries, universities and communities should jointly implement, incentivize, and sustain open practices, infrastructure, peer-review reform, and researcher training; and that such openness yields broader societal, economic, and decision-making benefits (interdisciplinarity, evidence-informed policy, innovation, trust). It spans distinct sub-themes—multi-stakeholder collaboration, research-assessment/incentive reform, peer-review experimentation, research-culture/training, and rhetorical claims about societal value—held together only by the general idea that varied actors bear responsibility for, and gain from, an open research system. A new position belongs here if it names one or more of these recurring actors (funders, institutions, publishers, libraries, research leaders) taking or being urged to take action toward openness, or asserts a general societal/epistemic benefit of open practices; it would NOT belong if it specifies a concrete open-science mechanism (e.g., a licensing scheme, a specific FAIR data standard, or a named repository) rather than a general stakeholder-responsibility or benefit claim.", "coherence": "low", "subpositions": [ { "statement": "Funders, institutions, publishers, and libraries should collaborate on open-science transition policies.", "members": [ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 22, 25, 29, 38, 43, 47, 50, 55 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-05/c57", "open-science-source-42/c123", "open-science-source-42/c147", "open-science-source-03/c161", "osft-doc-1673/c80", "osft-doc-0860/c2", "open-science-source-03/c162", "osft-doc-0441/c316", "osft-doc-1459/c157", "osft-doc-1449/c60", "osft-doc-1327/c1007", "open-science-source-38/c207", "osft-doc-1327/c1023", "open-science-source-21/c95", "osft-doc-1646/c37", "osft-doc-1373/c385", "open-science-source-03/c209" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Funders and publishers should keep experimenting with and investing in peer-review innovations.", "members": [ 6, 14, 24 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-18/c516", "open-science-source-18/c515", "open-science-source-18/c511" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Research assessment, training, and incentive structures should reward open and reproducible practices.", "members": [ 15, 16, 17, 19, 26, 36, 40, 44, 45, 46, 56, 61 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0108/c23", "open-science-source-42/c491", "open-science-source-37-c2/c108", "osft-doc-0050/c15", "osft-doc-0050/c111", "osft-doc-1373/c297", "osft-doc-0050/c113", "osft-doc-0050/c110", "osft-doc-1449/c409", "osft-doc-0050/c112", "osft-doc-0050/c109", "open-science-source-43/c1" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Open, interdisciplinary research delivers societal, economic, and innovation benefits.", "members": [ 21, 23, 27, 28, 30, 37, 39, 41, 42, 48, 53, 60 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1373/c244", "osft-doc-0504/c24", "osft-doc-0825/c42", "osft-doc-0114/c11", "open-science-source-12/c140", "osft-doc-0825/c43", "open-science-source-04/c128", "open-science-source-37-c2/c109", "osft-doc-1373/c11", "osft-doc-0105/c87", "osft-doc-1373/c10", "osft-doc-0114/c12" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Open research information and indicators increasingly shape decision-making.", "members": [ 12, 18, 20, 31, 33, 57, 63, 64 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-05/c19", "osft-doc-1373/c154", "open-science-source-05/c38", "osft-doc-0730/c45", "open-science-source-05/c56", "open-science-source-05/c25", "osft-doc-1373/c588", "open-science-source-05/c36" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Communities and prior advocacy sustain the identity and momentum of open scholarship.", "members": [ 17, 35, 54, 58, 62 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-37-c2/c108", "open-science-source-37-c1/c195", "osft-doc-1459/c245", "osft-doc-1459/c244", "osft-doc-1373/c474" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Researchers' willingness to participate depends on perceived personal benefit or prestige.", "members": [ 34, 52, 59 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1373/c357", "open-science-source-45/c199", "osft-doc-1373/c358" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" } ], "outliers": [ { "rep": "open-science-source-41/c208", "text": "AI for Science efforts need to become genuinely interdisciplinary in order to succeed.", "why": "Specific to AI-for-Science interdisciplinarity, an outlier topic within the cluster." }, { "rep": "open-science-source-05/c25", "text": "Decisions about the careers of researchers, about the future of research organizations, and ultimately about the way science serves the whole of humanity depend on black-box indicators and analytics.", "why": "Critical claim about opaque 'black-box' indicators controlling careers, tonally distinct from the cluster's collaborative/benefit framing." } ], "clusterStats": { "size": 65, "claims": 163, "documents": 58, "meanIntraCos": 0.828, "minIntraCos": 0.754 }, "starIds": [ "open-science-source-09/c1", "osft-doc-1673/c80", "open-science-source-12/c140", "open-science-source-18/c511", "open-science-source-42/c147", "open-science-source-05/c36", "open-science-source-37-c1/c195", "open-science-source-37-c2/c108", "osft-doc-0108/c23", "osft-doc-1373/c10", "osft-doc-1373/c11", "osft-doc-1373/c154", "osft-doc-1373/c297", "osft-doc-1373/c474", "osft-doc-1373/c588", "osft-doc-1449/c409", "osft-doc-1459/c244", "osft-doc-1646/c37", "open-science-source-18/c516", "open-science-source-41/c208", "osft-doc-0730/c45", "osft-doc-1327/c1023", "osft-doc-0860/c2", "osft-doc-1459/c157", "open-science-source-03/c161", "osft-doc-1373/c244", "osft-doc-1373/c385", "osft-doc-1449/c60", "osft-doc-1459/c245", "osft-doc-1327/c1007", "open-science-source-03/c162", "open-science-source-03/c209", "open-science-source-04/c128", "open-science-source-05/c19", "open-science-source-05/c25", "open-science-source-05/c38", "open-science-source-05/c56", "open-science-source-18/c515", "open-science-source-21/c95", "open-science-source-37-c2/c109", "open-science-source-38/c207", "open-science-source-42/c123", "open-science-source-42/c491", "open-science-source-43/c1", "open-science-source-45/c199", "open-science-source-45/c50", "osft-doc-0050/c109", "osft-doc-0050/c110", "osft-doc-0050/c111", "osft-doc-0050/c112", "osft-doc-0050/c113", "osft-doc-0050/c15", "osft-doc-0105/c87", "osft-doc-0114/c11", "osft-doc-0114/c12", "osft-doc-0441/c316", "osft-doc-0504/c24", "osft-doc-0825/c42", "osft-doc-0825/c43", "osft-doc-1353/c11", "osft-doc-1373/c357", "osft-doc-1373/c358", "osft-doc-1373/c75", "osft-doc-1673/c24", "open-science-source-05/c57" ], "clusterMemberOrder": [ "open-science-source-05/c57", "open-science-source-42/c123", "open-science-source-42/c147", "open-science-source-03/c161", "osft-doc-1673/c80", "open-science-source-45/c50", "open-science-source-18/c516", "osft-doc-0860/c2", "open-science-source-03/c162", "osft-doc-0441/c316", "osft-doc-1459/c157", "osft-doc-1353/c11", "open-science-source-05/c19", "osft-doc-1373/c75", "open-science-source-18/c515", "osft-doc-0108/c23", "open-science-source-42/c491", "open-science-source-37-c2/c108", "osft-doc-1373/c154", "osft-doc-0050/c15", "open-science-source-05/c38", "osft-doc-1373/c244", "osft-doc-1449/c60", "osft-doc-0504/c24", "open-science-source-18/c511", "osft-doc-1327/c1007", "osft-doc-0050/c111", "osft-doc-0825/c42", "osft-doc-0114/c11", "open-science-source-38/c207", "open-science-source-12/c140", "osft-doc-0730/c45", "osft-doc-1673/c24", "open-science-source-05/c56", "osft-doc-1373/c357", "open-science-source-37-c1/c195", "osft-doc-1373/c297", "osft-doc-0825/c43", "osft-doc-1327/c1023", "open-science-source-04/c128", "osft-doc-0050/c113", "open-science-source-37-c2/c109", "osft-doc-1373/c11", "open-science-source-21/c95", "osft-doc-0050/c110", "osft-doc-1449/c409", "osft-doc-0050/c112", "osft-doc-1646/c37", "osft-doc-0105/c87", "open-science-source-41/c208", "osft-doc-1373/c385", "open-science-source-09/c1", "open-science-source-45/c199", "osft-doc-1373/c10", "osft-doc-1459/c245", "open-science-source-03/c209", "osft-doc-0050/c109", "open-science-source-05/c25", "osft-doc-1459/c244", "osft-doc-1373/c358", "osft-doc-0114/c12", "open-science-source-43/c1", "osft-doc-1373/c474", "osft-doc-1373/c588", "open-science-source-05/c36" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 65, "claims": 163, "documents": 58 } }, { "id": "bu-005", "kind": "mixed", "name": "Research outputs should carry open licenses, persistent identifiers, and proper attribution", "definition": "Members converge on three recurring but distinct mechanisms for making research outputs open and traceable: requiring open licenses (typically CC BY) on publications; assigning globally unique, persistent identifiers (ORCID, DOI, GUPRIs) to researchers, publications, data, and metadata; and ensuring authors, groups, and software receive proper citation credit. A position belongs here if it prescribes or describes one of these three mechanisms as a general norm for research outputs. It does NOT belong if it only states a specific funder's or agency's internal compliance procedure (e.g., which repository to deposit in, which internal policy to follow, or the administrative burden of compliance) without asserting the underlying licensing, identifier, or credit norm itself.", "coherence": "medium", "subpositions": [ { "statement": "Publications should be openly licensed, typically via CC BY.", "members": [ 0, 1, 3, 5, 10, 11, 14, 16, 21, 22, 23, 24 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-24-c3/c20", "open-science-source-24-c7/c8", "open-science-source-24-c8/c48", "open-science-source-24-c4/c27", "open-science-source-20/c12", "osft-doc-1213/c50", "osft-doc-1213/c49", "osft-doc-0411/c51", "open-science-source-03/c74", "open-science-source-03/c29", "osft-doc-1213/c5", "osft-doc-1213/c24" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Researchers, objects, and metadata should carry persistent identifiers like ORCID or DOI.", "members": [ 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 19, 27, 28, 32, 34, 39, 40, 41 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0050/c8", "open-science-source-34/c61", "osft-doc-0142/c151", "osft-doc-0050/c51", "open-science-source-24-c7/c9", "open-science-source-24-c6/c18", "osft-doc-1459/c124", "open-science-source-24-c4/c45", "open-science-source-24-c1/c82", "osft-doc-0645/c84", "open-science-source-24-c6/c19", "open-science-source-24-c7/c10", "open-science-source-24-c1/c83", "osft-doc-0731/c1" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Authors, contributing groups, and software should receive proper citation credit.", "members": [ 13, 15, 25, 26, 29, 37, 38 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1327/c644", "osft-doc-0108/c42", "osft-doc-0108/c50", "osft-doc-1412/c160", "osft-doc-0846/c37", "osft-doc-0105/c106", "osft-doc-1327/c683" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Grantees must follow specific funder deposit, IP, or data-management procedures.", "members": [ 17, 18, 20, 30, 31, 33, 35, 36, 42 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-24-c3/c56", "open-science-source-24-c2/c83", "open-science-source-37-c1/c10", "open-science-source-37-c1/c7", "osft-doc-0534/c28", "open-science-source-24-c2/c17", "open-science-source-23/c37", "open-science-source-37-c2/c27", "osft-doc-1507/c134" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" } ], "outliers": [ { "rep": "open-science-source-37-c1/c10", "text": "Recipients of Open Science NL funding must comply with the NWO Open Access Policy.", "why": "Names a specific funder's internal policy compliance, not a licensing/PID/credit norm" }, { "rep": "open-science-source-37-c1/c7", "text": "Recipients of Open Science NL funding must comply with the NWO research data management protocol.", "why": "About complying with a specific data-management protocol, not licensing/identifiers/credit" }, { "rep": "open-science-source-37-c2/c27", "text": "Recipients of Open Science NL funding must follow NWO's grant rules with regard to intellectual property (IP) management.", "why": "About following a specific funder's IP grant rules, not the cluster's core mechanisms" }, { "rep": "osft-doc-1507/c134", "text": "re3data provides no certificate but a number of badges that characterize important features and add a citeable identifier (DOI).", "why": "Describes a repository's badge/certificate system, tangential to identifiers as a norm" }, { "rep": "open-science-source-24-c2/c17", "text": "Requiring grantees to provide AHRQ a sufficient license as a term and condition of funding is the most straightforward approach that minimizes complexity and burden in compliance for grantee institutions and authors.", "why": "Empirical claim about administrative burden of licensing compliance, not the norm itself" }, { "rep": "open-science-source-23/c37", "text": "Requiring deposit of Author Accepted Manuscripts allows maximum grant funds to support research activities.", "why": "Empirical claim about grant fund efficiency, not about licensing/identifiers/credit" }, { "rep": "open-science-source-24-c3/c56", "text": "Policy-covered works must include the language from one of the two template options when deposited in agency-designated repositories or distributed by any other means, in order to meet the grantee's public access obligation.", "why": "Procedural requirement about template language for deposit, not a general licensing norm" } ], "clusterStats": { "size": 43, "claims": 126, "documents": 54, "meanIntraCos": 0.831, "minIntraCos": 0.756 }, "starIds": [ "open-science-source-24-c7/c8", "open-science-source-20/c12", "open-science-source-24-c2/c17", "open-science-source-24-c8/c48", "osft-doc-1213/c5", "open-science-source-24-c6/c18", "open-science-source-34/c61", "osft-doc-1327/c644", "osft-doc-1213/c50", "open-science-source-24-c6/c19", "open-science-source-24-c7/c9", "osft-doc-0411/c51", "osft-doc-0645/c84", "osft-doc-0534/c28", "open-science-source-24-c3/c56", "open-science-source-03/c74", "osft-doc-0050/c8", "open-science-source-37-c2/c27", "open-science-source-24-c4/c27", "open-science-source-24-c3/c20", "osft-doc-1213/c24", "osft-doc-1213/c49", "open-science-source-24-c1/c82", "osft-doc-1459/c124", "open-science-source-24-c7/c10", "osft-doc-0050/c51", "osft-doc-0846/c37", "open-science-source-03/c29", "open-science-source-23/c37", "open-science-source-24-c1/c83", "open-science-source-24-c2/c83", "open-science-source-24-c4/c45", "open-science-source-37-c1/c10", "open-science-source-37-c1/c7", "osft-doc-0050/c9", "osft-doc-0105/c106", "osft-doc-0108/c42", "osft-doc-0108/c50", "osft-doc-0142/c151", "osft-doc-0731/c1", "osft-doc-1327/c683", "osft-doc-1412/c160", "osft-doc-1507/c134" ], "clusterMemberOrder": [ "open-science-source-24-c3/c20", "open-science-source-24-c7/c8", "osft-doc-0050/c8", "open-science-source-24-c8/c48", "osft-doc-0050/c9", "open-science-source-24-c4/c27", "open-science-source-34/c61", "osft-doc-0142/c151", "osft-doc-0050/c51", "open-science-source-24-c7/c9", "open-science-source-20/c12", "osft-doc-1213/c50", "open-science-source-24-c6/c18", "osft-doc-1327/c644", "osft-doc-1213/c49", "osft-doc-0108/c42", "osft-doc-0411/c51", "open-science-source-24-c3/c56", "open-science-source-24-c2/c83", "osft-doc-1459/c124", "open-science-source-37-c1/c10", "open-science-source-03/c74", "open-science-source-03/c29", "osft-doc-1213/c5", "osft-doc-1213/c24", "osft-doc-0108/c50", "osft-doc-1412/c160", "open-science-source-24-c4/c45", "open-science-source-24-c1/c82", "osft-doc-0846/c37", "open-science-source-37-c1/c7", "osft-doc-0534/c28", "osft-doc-0645/c84", "open-science-source-24-c2/c17", "open-science-source-24-c6/c19", "open-science-source-23/c37", "open-science-source-37-c2/c27", "osft-doc-0105/c106", "osft-doc-1327/c683", "open-science-source-24-c7/c10", "open-science-source-24-c1/c83", "osft-doc-0731/c1", "osft-doc-1507/c134" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 43, "claims": 126, "documents": 54 } }, { "id": "bu-006", "kind": "mixed", "name": "Institutions, funders, and researchers must reform incentives, training, and infrastructure to embed open science.", "definition": "Members call for systemic, institutional-level change to make open scholarship the norm, via four recurring levers: reforming hiring/promotion/tenure and assessment criteria to reward openness; building training, courses, and educational communities in open practices; funding and governing sustainable, inclusive research infrastructure; and driving broader cultural change across universities, funders, and disciplines. A new position belongs here if it prescribes (or describes the need for) a structural, institutional, or cultural mechanism to promote, reward, or sustain open practices generally. It does NOT belong if it specifies a particular open-science practice or policy content itself (e.g., what counts as open data, a specific licensing rule, or a publishing mandate's terms) rather than the enabling systems, incentives, or cultural shift around adoption.", "coherence": "medium", "subpositions": [ { "statement": "Career, hiring, promotion and tenure systems should reward open science.", "members": [ 0, 4, 6, 9, 16, 24, 29, 34, 35, 39, 45, 50, 54, 55, 56, 57, 63, 65, 73, 76, 80, 83, 84 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1373/c212", "osft-doc-1449/c58", "osft-doc-1869/c52", "open-science-source-23/c61", "osft-doc-1459/c115", "open-science-source-03/c262", "osft-doc-1327/c659", "osft-doc-1449/c339", "open-science-source-03/c248", "osft-doc-1449/c331", "osft-doc-1459/c643", "osft-doc-1283/c54", "open-science-source-03/c260", "osft-doc-1449/c502", "osft-doc-1373/c76", "open-science-source-12/c99", "osft-doc-1449/c348", "osft-doc-0441/c315", "osft-doc-1373/c584", "osft-doc-1373/c405", "open-science-source-54-c2/c90", "osft-doc-1327/c146", "osft-doc-1373/c404" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Training, courses, and educational communities should be built for open scholarship.", "members": [ 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 31, 42, 44, 48, 60, 64, 67, 75 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1673/c87", "osft-doc-1869/c152", "osft-doc-1673/c8", "osft-doc-1373/c176", "osft-doc-1459/c44", "osft-doc-1673/c103", "osft-doc-1373/c49", "osft-doc-1373/c47", "osft-doc-1869/c210", "osft-doc-1673/c18", "osft-doc-1459/c219", "osft-doc-1373/c209", "osft-doc-1673/c100", "osft-doc-1459/c66", "osft-doc-1373/c208", "osft-doc-1373/c169", "osft-doc-1373/c442", "osft-doc-1459/c67", "osft-doc-1373/c441", "osft-doc-1373/c447" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Sustainable, community-governed infrastructure and funding are needed for open research.", "members": [ 10, 25, 30, 36, 38, 40, 43, 46, 47, 49, 61, 66, 69, 72, 74, 79, 81 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1869/c15", "osft-doc-1869/c68", "osft-doc-1373/c559", "open-science-source-10/c189", "osft-doc-0050/c12", "osft-doc-1373/c210", "open-science-source-05/c40", "osft-doc-1373/c119", "osft-doc-0002/c29", "open-science-source-21/c77", "open-science-source-38/c107", "open-science-source-03/c213", "osft-doc-1459/c405", "osft-doc-1373/c177", "osft-doc-1373/c179", "osft-doc-1373/c292", "open-science-source-10/c186" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Broad cultural and structural change across academia is required for open science.", "members": [ 11, 12, 13, 14, 20, 28, 33, 37, 52, 53, 58, 62, 70, 71, 77, 78, 82 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1449/c479", "osft-doc-1869/c231", "osft-doc-1459/c668", "osft-doc-0138/c5", "osft-doc-1459/c669", "open-science-source-25/c8", "osft-doc-1459/c667", "osft-doc-0050/c183", "osft-doc-1459/c5", "osft-doc-1253/c36", "osft-doc-0268/c5", "osft-doc-0150/c98", "osft-doc-0050/c190", "osft-doc-1449/c474", "open-science-source-03/c129", "open-science-source-18/c518", "osft-doc-0268/c22" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Diversity and inclusivity must be built into the open scholarship community.", "members": [ 51, 60, 67 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-03/c190", "osft-doc-1373/c442", "osft-doc-1373/c441" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" } ], "outliers": [ { "rep": "osft-doc-0152/c8", "text": "Open Scholarship refers to an attempt to realign modern research practices with the collective ideal of scholarly research.", "why": "purely definitional statement of what Open Scholarship means, not a call for institutional change" }, { "rep": "osft-doc-1459/c5", "text": "Open Scholarship is an attempt to realign modern research practices with the collective (commons) ideal.", "why": "definitional/descriptive framing of Open Scholarship's aim rather than a prescribed structural mechanism" } ], "clusterStats": { "size": 85, "claims": 276, "documents": 52, "meanIntraCos": 0.85, "minIntraCos": 0.784 }, "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0138/c5", "osft-doc-0268/c22", "open-science-source-03/c190", "osft-doc-1869/c231", "osft-doc-1373/c176", "osft-doc-1869/c152", "open-science-source-54-c2/c90", "osft-doc-1459/c405", "osft-doc-1673/c12", "osft-doc-1449/c474", "osft-doc-1449/c58", "osft-doc-1869/c52", "osft-doc-1673/c100", "osft-doc-1373/c119", "open-science-source-25/c8", "osft-doc-1673/c18", "osft-doc-1673/c87", "osft-doc-1449/c479", "osft-doc-1449/c331", "osft-doc-0050/c190", "open-science-source-03/c262", "osft-doc-0002/c29", "osft-doc-1459/c643", "osft-doc-1673/c8", "open-science-source-21/c77", "open-science-source-10/c186", "osft-doc-1673/c103", "osft-doc-1869/c68", "osft-doc-1459/c668", "osft-doc-0002/c33", "osft-doc-1373/c208", "osft-doc-1373/c210", "osft-doc-1373/c292", "osft-doc-1373/c404", "osft-doc-1373/c47", "osft-doc-1373/c49", "osft-doc-1373/c584", "osft-doc-0268/c5", "osft-doc-1459/c219", "open-science-source-18/c518", "open-science-source-38/c107", "osft-doc-0050/c12", "osft-doc-0150/c98", "osft-doc-1253/c36", "open-science-source-23/c61", "osft-doc-1449/c339", "osft-doc-1449/c502", "osft-doc-1327/c146", "open-science-source-03/c223", "osft-doc-1459/c115", "open-science-source-03/c248", "osft-doc-1283/c54", "osft-doc-1459/c667", "osft-doc-1869/c15", "open-science-source-03/c213", "open-science-source-10/c189", "osft-doc-1373/c405", "osft-doc-1373/c559", "osft-doc-1449/c348", "osft-doc-1869/c210", "open-science-source-03/c129", "open-science-source-03/c260", "open-science-source-05/c40", "open-science-source-12/c99", "osft-doc-0050/c183", "osft-doc-0152/c8", "osft-doc-0441/c315", "osft-doc-1327/c659", "osft-doc-1373/c169", "osft-doc-1373/c177", "osft-doc-1373/c178", "osft-doc-1373/c209", "osft-doc-1373/c212", "osft-doc-1373/c441", "osft-doc-1373/c442", "osft-doc-1373/c447", "osft-doc-1373/c59", "osft-doc-1373/c60", "osft-doc-1373/c76", "osft-doc-1459/c44", "osft-doc-1459/c5", "osft-doc-1459/c66", "osft-doc-1459/c669", "osft-doc-1459/c67", "osft-doc-1373/c179" ], "clusterMemberOrder": [ "osft-doc-1373/c212", "osft-doc-1673/c87", "osft-doc-1869/c152", "osft-doc-1673/c8", "osft-doc-1449/c58", "osft-doc-1373/c176", "osft-doc-1869/c52", "osft-doc-1459/c44", "osft-doc-1673/c103", "open-science-source-23/c61", "osft-doc-1869/c15", "osft-doc-1449/c479", "osft-doc-1869/c231", "osft-doc-1459/c668", "osft-doc-0138/c5", "osft-doc-1373/c178", "osft-doc-1459/c115", "osft-doc-1373/c49", "osft-doc-1373/c47", "osft-doc-1869/c210", "osft-doc-1459/c669", "osft-doc-1673/c18", "osft-doc-1459/c219", "osft-doc-1373/c209", "open-science-source-03/c262", "osft-doc-1869/c68", "osft-doc-1673/c12", "osft-doc-1373/c60", "open-science-source-25/c8", "osft-doc-1327/c659", "osft-doc-1373/c559", "osft-doc-1673/c100", "osft-doc-1373/c59", "osft-doc-1459/c667", "osft-doc-1449/c339", "open-science-source-03/c248", "open-science-source-10/c189", "osft-doc-0050/c183", "osft-doc-0050/c12", "osft-doc-1449/c331", "osft-doc-1373/c210", "open-science-source-03/c223", "osft-doc-1459/c66", "open-science-source-05/c40", "osft-doc-1373/c208", "osft-doc-1459/c643", "osft-doc-1373/c119", "osft-doc-0002/c29", "osft-doc-1373/c169", "open-science-source-21/c77", "osft-doc-1283/c54", "open-science-source-03/c190", "osft-doc-1459/c5", "osft-doc-1253/c36", "open-science-source-03/c260", "osft-doc-1449/c502", "osft-doc-1373/c76", "open-science-source-12/c99", "osft-doc-0268/c5", "osft-doc-0152/c8", "osft-doc-1373/c442", "open-science-source-38/c107", "osft-doc-0150/c98", "osft-doc-1449/c348", "osft-doc-1459/c67", "osft-doc-0441/c315", "open-science-source-03/c213", "osft-doc-1373/c441", "osft-doc-0002/c33", "osft-doc-1459/c405", "osft-doc-0050/c190", "osft-doc-1449/c474", "osft-doc-1373/c177", "osft-doc-1373/c584", "osft-doc-1373/c179", "osft-doc-1373/c447", "osft-doc-1373/c405", "open-science-source-03/c129", "open-science-source-18/c518", "osft-doc-1373/c292", "open-science-source-54-c2/c90", "open-science-source-10/c186", "osft-doc-0268/c22", "osft-doc-1327/c146", "osft-doc-1373/c404" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 85, "claims": 276, "documents": 52 } }, { "id": "bu-007", "kind": "mixed", "name": "Open science's scope covers many kinds of data, outputs, publications, and information, still evolving.", "definition": "Members mostly define or enumerate what counts within open science's scope: types of scientific/research data (observational, modelling, monitoring, survey, risk-assessment, etc.), types of federal science publications (articles, reports, posters, monographs, conference papers), the content of 'research information' (funding, contributors, metadata, evaluation uses), and the broader outputs of research (articles, data, code, trained scientists, public dialogue). Alongside these definitional enumerations sit empirical/normative claims that open science lacks one fixed definition, is a growing, phased, multi-dimensional transition, and that public engagement and disciplinary sensitivity matter. A new position belongs if it defines, enumerates, or scopes what counts as a research output, data type, publication type, or information type under open science, or characterizes open science as an evolving, unsettled movement. It would NOT belong if it instead specifies a concrete policy mechanism (funding mandates, licensing terms, embargoes, specific compliance requirements) or a particular practice recommendation unrelated to defining scope.", "coherence": "low", "subpositions": [ { "statement": "Scientific and research data include many enumerated categories (observational, modelling, monitoring, etc.).", "members": [ 3, 4, 5, 9, 11, 12, 25, 32, 16, 44, 46 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1646/c76", "osft-doc-1646/c70", "osft-doc-1646/c73", "osft-doc-1646/c72", "osft-doc-1646/c77", "osft-doc-1646/c71", "osft-doc-1646/c74", "osft-doc-1646/c75", "osft-doc-1507/c93", "osft-doc-1507/c94", "osft-doc-1507/c95" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Federal science publications include many enumerated document types.", "members": [ 10, 23, 27, 28, 34, 40, 42, 52, 57, 60, 84, 48, 81 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1646/c59", "osft-doc-1646/c67", "osft-doc-1646/c64", "osft-doc-1646/c65", "osft-doc-1646/c68", "osft-doc-1646/c58", "osft-doc-1646/c66", "osft-doc-1646/c60", "osft-doc-1646/c61", "osft-doc-1646/c62", "osft-doc-1646/c57", "open-science-source-34/c29", "osft-doc-1702/c104" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Research information encompasses funding, contributors, metadata, and evaluation uses.", "members": [ 1, 13, 14, 29, 31, 35, 38, 39, 64, 65, 67 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-05/c53", "osft-doc-0730/c60", "open-science-source-05/c62", "open-science-source-05/c61", "open-science-source-05/c60", "open-science-source-05/c66", "open-science-source-05/c3", "open-science-source-05/c5", "open-science-source-05/c4", "open-science-source-05/c63", "open-science-source-05/c2" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Open science/scholarship lacks a single fixed definition and is evolving.", "members": [ 2, 6, 8, 17, 18, 22, 24, 30, 36, 49, 54, 58, 61, 62, 73, 75, 76, 77, 80 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0411/c2", "osft-doc-0441/c43", "osft-doc-1253/c15", "open-science-source-15-c2/c109", "osft-doc-0296/c2", "osft-doc-0825/c30", "open-science-source-03/c26", "osft-doc-0975/c30", "osft-doc-1327/c397", "open-science-source-53/c15", "open-science-source-12/c41", "osft-doc-1673/c122", "osft-doc-1673/c302", "osft-doc-1373/c635", "osft-doc-1449/c8", "osft-doc-1373/c526", "open-science-source-03/c30", "osft-doc-1449/c16", "osft-doc-1373/c525" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Public engagement and citizen science are part of open research.", "members": [ 20, 21, 33, 43, 51, 70, 74 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-45/c218", "osft-doc-1373/c392", "osft-doc-1373/c399", "open-science-source-45/c253", "osft-doc-1373/c395", "open-science-source-03/c107", "open-science-source-26/c80" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Transitioning to open science should be a phased, gradual process.", "members": [ 59, 71, 73, 77, 83 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1646/c41", "osft-doc-1449/c234", "osft-doc-1449/c8", "osft-doc-1449/c16", "osft-doc-1646/c26" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" } ], "outliers": [ { "rep": "open-science-source-15-c1/c58", "text": "For cOAlition S funded research covered by Plan S requirements, all peer-reviewed scholarly articles must be published in venues that fulfil the requirements set out for publication venues.", "why": "Specific Plan S publication-venue compliance requirement, not a scope definition" }, { "rep": "osft-doc-0142/c204", "text": "Bibliometrics focuses on the quantitative analysis of scientific and scholarly publications, including patents.", "why": "Defines bibliometrics as a method, unrelated to open science scope" }, { "rep": "osft-doc-1373/c30", "text": "Individuals may use lab notebooks to openly document research.", "why": "A specific individual practice recommendation rather than a scope definition" }, { "rep": "osft-doc-1373/c28", "text": "Individuals may pre-register studies to openly document research.", "why": "A specific individual practice recommendation (pre-registration) rather than scope" }, { "rep": "osft-doc-1373/c63", "text": "Groups and labs may have profiles on public open science discussion platforms where needed.", "why": "Specific platform-use recommendation, not a definitional/scope claim" } ], "clusterStats": { "size": 88, "claims": 247, "documents": 51, "meanIntraCos": 0.822, "minIntraCos": 0.746 }, "starIds": [ "open-science-source-34/c29", "osft-doc-0108/c2", "osft-doc-0108/c3", "osft-doc-1327/c345", "osft-doc-1673/c302", "osft-doc-1673/c122", "osft-doc-1646/c62", "osft-doc-1646/c64", "osft-doc-0825/c30", "osft-doc-1646/c47", "osft-doc-1646/c57", "osft-doc-1646/c58", "osft-doc-1646/c59", "osft-doc-1646/c60", "osft-doc-1646/c61", "osft-doc-1646/c65", "osft-doc-1646/c66", "osft-doc-1646/c67", "osft-doc-1646/c68", "osft-doc-1646/c26", "open-science-source-15-c2/c109", "open-science-source-12/c41", "osft-doc-0411/c2", "osft-doc-1449/c8", "open-science-source-03/c171", "open-science-source-45/c218", "osft-doc-0441/c43", "osft-doc-1373/c399", "osft-doc-1449/c234", "osft-doc-1646/c39", "osft-doc-1646/c41", "osft-doc-1646/c70", "osft-doc-1646/c71", "osft-doc-1646/c72", "osft-doc-1646/c73", "osft-doc-1646/c74", "osft-doc-1646/c75", "osft-doc-1646/c76", "osft-doc-1646/c77", "osft-doc-1702/c104", "open-science-source-05/c53", "osft-doc-0730/c60", "osft-doc-0296/c2", "osft-doc-1327/c397", "osft-doc-1449/c16", "open-science-source-53/c15", "osft-doc-1373/c635", "osft-doc-1253/c15", "open-science-source-03/c107", "open-science-source-03/c170", "open-science-source-03/c172", "open-science-source-03/c173", "open-science-source-03/c26", "open-science-source-03/c30", "open-science-source-05/c2", "open-science-source-05/c3", "open-science-source-05/c4", "open-science-source-05/c5", "open-science-source-05/c60", "open-science-source-05/c61", "open-science-source-05/c62", "open-science-source-05/c63", "open-science-source-05/c66", "open-science-source-05/c78", "open-science-source-05/c79", "open-science-source-05/c80", "open-science-source-05/c82", "open-science-source-15-c1/c58", "open-science-source-26/c80", "open-science-source-45/c253", "osft-doc-0084/c17", "osft-doc-0142/c204", "osft-doc-0836/c2", "osft-doc-0860/c18", "osft-doc-0951/c1", "osft-doc-0951/c2", "osft-doc-0951/c35", "osft-doc-0975/c30", "osft-doc-1373/c28", "osft-doc-1373/c30", "osft-doc-1373/c392", "osft-doc-1373/c395", "osft-doc-1373/c525", "osft-doc-1373/c526", "osft-doc-1373/c63", "osft-doc-1507/c93", "osft-doc-1507/c94", "osft-doc-1507/c95" ], "clusterMemberOrder": [ "osft-doc-0108/c3", "open-science-source-05/c53", "osft-doc-0411/c2", "osft-doc-1646/c76", "osft-doc-1646/c70", "osft-doc-1646/c73", "osft-doc-0441/c43", "osft-doc-1646/c47", "osft-doc-1253/c15", "osft-doc-1646/c72", "osft-doc-1646/c59", "osft-doc-1646/c77", "osft-doc-1646/c71", "osft-doc-0730/c60", "open-science-source-05/c62", "osft-doc-0108/c2", "osft-doc-1507/c93", "open-science-source-15-c2/c109", "osft-doc-0296/c2", "open-science-source-03/c170", "open-science-source-45/c218", "osft-doc-1373/c392", "osft-doc-0825/c30", "osft-doc-1646/c67", "open-science-source-03/c26", "osft-doc-1646/c74", "osft-doc-1327/c345", "osft-doc-1646/c64", "osft-doc-1646/c65", "open-science-source-05/c61", "osft-doc-0975/c30", "open-science-source-05/c60", "osft-doc-1646/c75", "osft-doc-1373/c399", "osft-doc-1646/c68", "open-science-source-05/c66", "osft-doc-1327/c397", "open-science-source-05/c78", "open-science-source-05/c3", "open-science-source-05/c5", "osft-doc-1646/c58", "osft-doc-0860/c18", "osft-doc-1646/c66", "open-science-source-45/c253", "osft-doc-1507/c94", "osft-doc-1373/c30", "osft-doc-1507/c95", "osft-doc-0951/c1", "open-science-source-34/c29", "open-science-source-53/c15", "open-science-source-03/c173", "osft-doc-1373/c395", "osft-doc-1646/c60", "osft-doc-0951/c2", "open-science-source-12/c41", "open-science-source-03/c172", "osft-doc-1373/c28", "osft-doc-1646/c61", "osft-doc-1673/c122", "osft-doc-1646/c41", "osft-doc-1646/c62", "osft-doc-1673/c302", "osft-doc-1373/c635", "osft-doc-0084/c17", "open-science-source-05/c4", "open-science-source-05/c63", "open-science-source-05/c80", "open-science-source-05/c2", "osft-doc-1646/c39", "osft-doc-0836/c2", "open-science-source-03/c107", "osft-doc-1449/c234", "open-science-source-03/c171", "osft-doc-1449/c8", "open-science-source-26/c80", "osft-doc-1373/c526", "open-science-source-03/c30", "osft-doc-1449/c16", "open-science-source-05/c79", "open-science-source-05/c82", "osft-doc-1373/c525", "osft-doc-1702/c104", "osft-doc-1373/c63", "osft-doc-1646/c26", "osft-doc-1646/c57", "osft-doc-0951/c35", "osft-doc-0142/c204", "open-science-source-15-c1/c58" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 88, "claims": 247, "documents": 51 } }, { "id": "bu-008", "kind": "convergence", "name": "Research data should follow FAIR principles, complemented by CARE principles for Indigenous data governance", "definition": "Members define and advocate implementing the FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) for research data, metadata, software, and other digital objects, often paired with the CARE Principles (Collective Benefit, Authority to Control, Responsibility, Ethics) for governing Indigenous data across its lifecycle. They cover what each principle means, technical and policy mechanisms for implementation (persistent identifiers, metadata standards, FAIR Data Points/Digital Objects, HL7 FHIR, maturity models, certification schemes), and normative calls to reconcile Indigenous data sovereignty and rights with open-data and interoperability practices, including in hybrid Indigenous/non-Indigenous datasets. A position belongs here if it names FAIR and/or CARE (or their component elements like findability, interoperability, collective benefit, authority to control) as the mechanism or object of the claim. Broader claims about equity, epistemic justice, reproducibility standards, or regional differences in open science that do not invoke FAIR or CARE fall outside this cluster.", "coherence": "medium", "subpositions": [ { "statement": "FAIR means data should be findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable.", "members": [ 6, 9, 13, 27, 39, 96 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-12/c32", "open-science-source-25/c28", "open-science-source-12/c31", "osft-doc-1702/c91", "osft-doc-1940/c1", "osft-doc-0645/c107" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "CARE defines collective benefit, authority to control, responsibility, and ethics.", "members": [ 31, 2 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-21/c48", "open-science-source-26/c24" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "FAIR and CARE should be operationalized together across the data lifecycle.", "members": [ 0, 1, 7, 12, 16, 19, 25, 29, 32, 41, 48, 54 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-26/c3", "open-science-source-26/c4", "open-science-source-26/c134", "osft-doc-1027/c138", "osft-doc-1027/c121", "open-science-source-26/c102", "osft-doc-1027/c28", "open-science-source-26/c124", "open-science-source-26/c44", "open-science-source-26/c123", "open-science-source-26/c38", "open-science-source-26/c40" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Technical and policy mechanisms (identifiers, FDPs, HL7 FHIR, certification) implement FAIR.", "members": [ 3, 5, 17, 22, 28, 33, 34, 37, 44, 56, 64, 67, 69, 71, 73, 77, 80, 82, 83 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0645/c93", "osft-doc-0050/c55", "osft-doc-1449/c230", "osft-doc-0951/c24", "osft-doc-0951/c25", "open-science-source-24-c2/c59", "open-science-source-26/c47", "osft-doc-1507/c49", "osft-doc-1507/c151", "osft-doc-1507/c113", "osft-doc-1507/c158", "osft-doc-1507/c20", "osft-doc-1507/c48", "osft-doc-1507/c115", "osft-doc-1507/c47", "osft-doc-1507/c114", "osft-doc-1507/c112", "osft-doc-1507/c157", "open-science-source-26/c136" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Indigenous communities and institutions must govern Indigenous data via CARE at every stage.", "members": [ 14, 20, 36, 42, 43, 49, 50, 52, 53, 55, 58, 59, 63, 70, 72, 76, 88, 89, 90, 92 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1027/c111", "open-science-source-26/c108", "open-science-source-26/c58", "open-science-source-26/c137", "osft-doc-1027/c116", "open-science-source-26/c82", "open-science-source-26/c107", "open-science-source-26/c138", "open-science-source-26/c112", "open-science-source-26/c76", "open-science-source-26/c105", "open-science-source-30/c107", "open-science-source-26/c21", "open-science-source-30/c194", "open-science-source-26/c45", "open-science-source-26/c106", "open-science-source-26/c139", "osft-doc-1027/c135", "open-science-source-26/c71", "open-science-source-26/c77" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" } ], "outliers": [ { "rep": "osft-doc-0150/c77", "text": "Reproducibility metrics should be co-developed with and sensitive to the research communities they affect.", "why": "Concerns reproducibility metrics co-developed with communities, no mention of FAIR/CARE." }, { "rep": "open-science-source-03/c143", "text": "Open science should build on long-term practices, services, infrastructures and funding models that ensure the equal participation of scientific producers from less privileged institutions and countries.", "why": "General call for equal participation of less-privileged institutions, unrelated to FAIR/CARE." }, { "rep": "open-science-source-22/c3", "text": "Access to research should be equitable for diverse stakeholders.", "why": "General equitable access to research, not tied to FAIR/CARE mechanisms." }, { "rep": "open-science-source-03/c126", "text": "Open science should ensure equity among researchers from developed and developing countries by enabling fair and reciprocal sharing of scientific inputs and outputs.", "why": "Equity between developed/developing countries, no FAIR/CARE framing." }, { "rep": "osft-doc-0050/c193", "text": "Research communities are best placed to lead development of reproducibility standards suited to their own epistemic contexts.", "why": "About who leads reproducibility standards, unrelated to FAIR/CARE." }, { "rep": "open-science-source-24-c6/c47", "text": "Equity should be ensured in benefitting from the results of federally funded research.", "why": "Equity in benefiting from federal research, not a FAIR/CARE claim." }, { "rep": "open-science-source-03/c130", "text": "The practice of science should be equitable, including in opportunities for scientific education and capacity development.", "why": "General equity in scientific practice/education, no FAIR/CARE link." }, { "rep": "open-science-source-31/c54", "text": "A more just open scholarly communications system must aspire toward epistemic justice, particularly for those suffering under unjust sociopolitical and economic structures.", "why": "Epistemic justice in scholarly communications broadly, not FAIR/CARE specific." }, { "rep": "open-science-source-45/c41", "text": "Recognizing regional differences in researchers' experiences should occur in order to tailor support and solutions that account for local contexts.", "why": "Regional differences in researcher experience, unrelated to FAIR/CARE." }, { "rep": "open-science-source-12/c72", "text": "Regional approaches that account for local research cultures and infrastructures could work better than one-size-fits-all data mandate strategies.", "why": "Regional vs one-size-fits-all mandates, not framed via FAIR/CARE." } ], "clusterStats": { "size": 97, "claims": 247, "documents": 48, "meanIntraCos": 0.837, "minIntraCos": 0.744 }, "starIds": [ "open-science-source-12/c32", "open-science-source-03/c143", "open-science-source-12/c31", "open-science-source-22/c3", "open-science-source-25/c28", "osft-doc-0645/c107", "osft-doc-1027/c28", "osft-doc-0951/c22", "osft-doc-0951/c24", "open-science-source-26/c123", "open-science-source-26/c50", "open-science-source-26/c27", "open-science-source-26/c4", "osft-doc-1027/c121", "open-science-source-45/c41", "open-science-source-24-c2/c55", "open-science-source-26/c21", "open-science-source-26/c58", "osft-doc-0951/c25", "osft-doc-1027/c135", "osft-doc-0645/c119", "osft-doc-1507/c158", "osft-doc-1507/c151", "osft-doc-1027/c111", "osft-doc-1027/c116", "osft-doc-1507/c147", "osft-doc-1940/c1", "open-science-source-26/c124", "open-science-source-03/c126", "open-science-source-26/c102", "open-science-source-26/c134", "osft-doc-0951/c23", "osft-doc-1027/c138", "open-science-source-24-c1/c56", "open-science-source-30/c194", "osft-doc-0730/c70", "osft-doc-1702/c91", "open-science-source-24-c6/c47", "open-science-source-03/c130", "open-science-source-03/c232", "open-science-source-12/c72", "open-science-source-21/c48", "open-science-source-24-c2/c59", "open-science-source-26/c105", "open-science-source-26/c106", "open-science-source-26/c107", "open-science-source-26/c108", "open-science-source-26/c112", "open-science-source-26/c113", "open-science-source-26/c126", "open-science-source-26/c136", "open-science-source-26/c137", "open-science-source-26/c138", "open-science-source-26/c139", "open-science-source-26/c141", "open-science-source-26/c24", "open-science-source-26/c29", "open-science-source-26/c3", "open-science-source-26/c31", "open-science-source-26/c38", "open-science-source-26/c40", "open-science-source-26/c44", "open-science-source-26/c45", "open-science-source-26/c47", "open-science-source-26/c71", "open-science-source-26/c76", "open-science-source-26/c77", "open-science-source-26/c82", "open-science-source-26/c83", "open-science-source-26/c89", "open-science-source-30/c107", "open-science-source-30/c137", "open-science-source-30/c140", "open-science-source-31/c54", "open-science-source-50/c50", "osft-doc-0050/c193", "osft-doc-0050/c55", "osft-doc-0150/c41", "osft-doc-0441/c290", "osft-doc-0645/c106", "osft-doc-0645/c3", "osft-doc-0645/c93", "osft-doc-1027/c92", "osft-doc-1449/c230", "osft-doc-1507/c112", "osft-doc-1507/c113", "osft-doc-1507/c114", "osft-doc-1507/c115", "osft-doc-1507/c135", "osft-doc-1507/c157", "osft-doc-1507/c20", "osft-doc-1507/c47", "osft-doc-1507/c48", "osft-doc-1507/c49", "osft-doc-1507/c50", "osft-doc-1507/c96", "osft-doc-0150/c77" ], "clusterMemberOrder": [ "open-science-source-26/c3", "open-science-source-26/c4", "open-science-source-26/c24", "osft-doc-0645/c93", "open-science-source-26/c27", "osft-doc-0050/c55", "open-science-source-12/c32", "open-science-source-26/c134", "open-science-source-26/c29", "open-science-source-25/c28", "open-science-source-30/c137", "osft-doc-0730/c70", "osft-doc-1027/c138", "open-science-source-12/c31", "osft-doc-1027/c111", "open-science-source-26/c141", "osft-doc-1027/c121", "osft-doc-1449/c230", "open-science-source-24-c1/c56", "open-science-source-26/c102", "open-science-source-26/c108", "osft-doc-0645/c3", "osft-doc-0951/c24", "open-science-source-26/c50", "open-science-source-24-c2/c55", "osft-doc-1027/c28", "open-science-source-30/c140", "osft-doc-1702/c91", "osft-doc-0951/c25", "open-science-source-26/c124", "open-science-source-03/c232", "open-science-source-21/c48", "open-science-source-26/c44", "open-science-source-24-c2/c59", "open-science-source-26/c47", "osft-doc-1507/c50", "open-science-source-26/c58", "osft-doc-1507/c49", "osft-doc-1507/c147", "osft-doc-1940/c1", "open-science-source-26/c126", "open-science-source-26/c123", "open-science-source-26/c137", "osft-doc-1027/c116", "osft-doc-1507/c151", "open-science-source-50/c50", "osft-doc-0951/c22", "open-science-source-26/c89", "open-science-source-26/c38", "open-science-source-26/c82", "open-science-source-26/c107", "osft-doc-1507/c96", "open-science-source-26/c138", "open-science-source-26/c112", "open-science-source-26/c40", "open-science-source-26/c76", "osft-doc-1507/c113", "osft-doc-0150/c41", "open-science-source-26/c105", "open-science-source-30/c107", "open-science-source-26/c31", "open-science-source-26/c113", "osft-doc-0951/c23", "open-science-source-26/c21", "osft-doc-1507/c158", "open-science-source-26/c83", "osft-doc-0645/c106", "osft-doc-1507/c20", "osft-doc-0645/c119", "osft-doc-1507/c48", "open-science-source-30/c194", "osft-doc-1507/c115", "open-science-source-26/c45", "osft-doc-1507/c47", "osft-doc-0150/c77", "open-science-source-03/c143", "open-science-source-26/c106", "osft-doc-1507/c114", "open-science-source-22/c3", "open-science-source-03/c126", "osft-doc-1507/c112", "osft-doc-1507/c135", "osft-doc-1507/c157", "open-science-source-26/c136", "osft-doc-0050/c193", "osft-doc-1027/c92", "open-science-source-24-c6/c47", "open-science-source-03/c130", "open-science-source-26/c139", "osft-doc-1027/c135", "open-science-source-26/c71", "open-science-source-31/c54", "open-science-source-26/c77", "open-science-source-45/c41", "open-science-source-12/c72", "osft-doc-0441/c290", "osft-doc-0645/c107" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 97, "claims": 247, "documents": 48 } }, { "id": "bu-009", "kind": "mixed", "name": "Strengthening research reproducibility requires funders, publishers, and meta-researchers to build shared norms, infrastructure, and incentives", "definition": "Members converge on the claim that reproducibility and replication are core scientific goods that must be actively strengthened through ecosystem-wide effort: shared norms and standards, sustained software and data infrastructure, capacity building for researchers and editorial staff, funder-supported meta-research into which interventions work and at what cost, dedicated replication funding, and credit/assessment systems (e.g. CRediT, ORCID, promotion criteria) that recognize open and reproducible work. It also includes a secondary thread on monitoring and evaluating open science progress more generally (tracking metrics, qualitative assessment, action-plan performance measures). It excludes positions about the economics or policy of open-access publishing itself (e.g. who pays, licensing, embargoes), and about unrelated equity/governance mandates such as gender or regional mainstreaming, which merely co-occur with open science documents but do not concern reproducibility, replication, meta-research, or research credit.", "coherence": "medium", "subpositions": [ { "statement": "Reproducibility improvement requires shared norms, standards, and sustained infrastructure.", "members": [ 0, 1, 5, 6, 15, 17, 18, 19, 33, 34, 37, 40, 41, 59, 63, 73, 86, 91, 7, 10, 21 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1869/c53", "osft-doc-0150/c206", "open-science-source-06/c51", "osft-doc-0150/c91", "osft-doc-0050/c26", "osft-doc-1449/c416", "osft-doc-0050/c64", "osft-doc-0050/c28", "osft-doc-0150/c207", "osft-doc-0050/c187", "osft-doc-0050/c21", "osft-doc-0050/c130", "osft-doc-0050/c194", "osft-doc-0050/c25", "osft-doc-1327/c170", "osft-doc-0441/c1", "osft-doc-0441/c34", "osft-doc-0050/c195", "open-science-source-50/c30", "open-science-source-37-c1/c130", "open-science-source-06/c188" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Funders and publishers should enable and fund meta-research on reproducibility interventions.", "members": [ 4, 12, 13, 14, 22, 25, 28, 38, 42, 43, 44, 50, 57, 61, 62, 36, 2 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0050/c19", "osft-doc-0050/c18", "osft-doc-0050/c141", "osft-doc-0150/c20", "osft-doc-0050/c140", "osft-doc-0050/c133", "osft-doc-0050/c131", "osft-doc-0050/c149", "osft-doc-0050/c139", "osft-doc-0050/c150", "osft-doc-0050/c153", "osft-doc-0050/c198", "osft-doc-0050/c146", "osft-doc-0050/c132", "osft-doc-0050/c156", "osft-doc-0050/c158", "osft-doc-0050/c157" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Replication is a core scientific activity that funders should support and reward.", "members": [ 11, 27, 29, 48, 55, 58, 68, 77, 79, 81, 84, 89, 46 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0050/c84", "osft-doc-0050/c11", "osft-doc-0441/c257", "osft-doc-0441/c259", "osft-doc-0050/c93", "osft-doc-0050/c82", "osft-doc-0050/c86", "osft-doc-0050/c83", "osft-doc-0441/c260", "osft-doc-0050/c91", "osft-doc-0050/c90", "osft-doc-0441/c258", "open-science-source-24-c9/c47" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Sharing and standardizing data, protocols, materials, and software increases true findings.", "members": [ 9, 10, 26, 78, 92, 93, 47, 67, 71 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0084/c4", "open-science-source-37-c1/c130", "osft-doc-0084/c7", "osft-doc-0633/c53", "osft-doc-0846/c3", "open-science-source-42/c246", "osft-doc-0050/c5", "osft-doc-0050/c6", "osft-doc-0050/c168" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Credit, attribution, and assessment systems should recognize open and reproducible research.", "members": [ 3, 20, 24, 31, 52, 54, 56, 60, 65, 72, 74, 75, 80, 82, 85, 87, 90, 31 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1869/c51", "osft-doc-1327/c770", "open-science-source-37-c1/c159", "osft-doc-1327/c780", "open-science-source-55/c31", "osft-doc-1373/c428", "osft-doc-1459/c195", "osft-doc-1373/c97", "osft-doc-1373/c435", "osft-doc-0211/c28", "osft-doc-1373/c198", "osft-doc-1737/c33", "osft-doc-1373/c181", "osft-doc-0108/c17", "open-science-source-38/c191", "osft-doc-0050/c119", "osft-doc-0050/c125", "osft-doc-1327/c780" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Monitoring and evaluation should track open science progress and impact.", "members": [ 51, 64, 66, 70, 20, 24 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-37-c1/c189", "osft-doc-0050/c70", "open-science-source-37-c2/c17", "open-science-source-37-c2/c154", "osft-doc-1327/c770", "open-science-source-37-c1/c159" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Researcher perspectives and skills are needed to make reproducibility practices workable.", "members": [ 8, 16, 30, 88 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0050/c95", "osft-doc-0150/c105", "open-science-source-12/c190", "osft-doc-0951/c16" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" } ], "outliers": [ { "rep": "open-science-source-03/c11", "text": "Gender equality and Africa should be mainstreamed in open science policies and practices.", "why": "gender equality mainstreaming is unrelated to reproducibility or credit" }, { "rep": "open-science-source-03/c160", "text": "Member States should mainstream gender equality aspects into open science policies, strategies and practices.", "why": "gender equality/regional mainstreaming, off-topic for this cluster" }, { "rep": "open-science-source-36/c292", "text": "Further analysis, such as on whether spending on publication charges is expected to increase, decrease, or stay the same, should be provided by OSTP to better inform agencies as they begin to implement their public access policies.", "why": "about publication-charge cost analysis, not reproducibility" }, { "rep": "osft-doc-0504/c44", "text": "Experimentation with further ways to make the transition from present methods of dissemination to open access should be encouraged.", "why": "about the transition to open access dissemination, not reproducibility" }, { "rep": "osft-doc-1459/c578", "text": "Further experimentation should be encouraged to demonstrate the applicability of larger-scale adoption of Open Scholarship practices and to increase the rate of growth and ultimate impact of Open Scholarship.", "why": "broad open scholarship adoption/experimentation, not specifically reproducibility" }, { "rep": "osft-doc-0441/c177", "text": "Accessibility should be considered a normative practice in science.", "why": "general accessibility norm, not tied to reproducibility or credit" }, { "rep": "open-science-source-38/c191", "text": "Institutions may invest in promoting the adoption and use of ORCID identifiers, which facilitate machine- and human-readable attribution.", "why": "ORCID adoption is an attribution tool only loosely tied to reproducibility" } ], "clusterStats": { "size": 94, "claims": 233, "documents": 48, "meanIntraCos": 0.83, "minIntraCos": 0.766 }, "starIds": [ "open-science-source-12/c190", "osft-doc-0150/c206", "osft-doc-1327/c770", "osft-doc-0050/c83", "osft-doc-1449/c416", "osft-doc-0050/c11", "osft-doc-0730/c12", "open-science-source-50/c30", "osft-doc-1869/c51", "osft-doc-0050/c64", "open-science-source-24-c9/c47", "osft-doc-0504/c44", "osft-doc-1459/c578", "open-science-source-37-c1/c130", "open-science-source-55/c31", "osft-doc-0211/c28", "osft-doc-1327/c170", "osft-doc-1373/c430", "osft-doc-1373/c431", "osft-doc-1373/c97", "osft-doc-0050/c198", "osft-doc-0150/c207", "osft-doc-0050/c139", "osft-doc-0050/c119", "osft-doc-0050/c25", "osft-doc-0050/c95", "osft-doc-0150/c105", "osft-doc-1373/c349", "open-science-source-06/c188", "osft-doc-1373/c198", "osft-doc-0951/c16", "osft-doc-1327/c780", "osft-doc-0050/c141", "osft-doc-0050/c19", "osft-doc-0050/c28", "osft-doc-0150/c91", "osft-doc-0441/c1", "osft-doc-1459/c195", "open-science-source-03/c11", "open-science-source-03/c160", "open-science-source-06/c51", "open-science-source-36/c292", "open-science-source-37-c1/c159", "open-science-source-37-c1/c189", "open-science-source-37-c2/c154", "open-science-source-37-c2/c17", "open-science-source-38/c191", "open-science-source-42/c246", "osft-doc-0050/c125", "osft-doc-0050/c130", "osft-doc-0050/c131", "osft-doc-0050/c132", "osft-doc-0050/c133", "osft-doc-0050/c140", "osft-doc-0050/c146", "osft-doc-0050/c149", "osft-doc-0050/c150", "osft-doc-0050/c153", "osft-doc-0050/c156", "osft-doc-0050/c157", "osft-doc-0050/c168", "osft-doc-0050/c18", "osft-doc-0050/c187", "osft-doc-0050/c194", "osft-doc-0050/c195", "osft-doc-0050/c21", "osft-doc-0050/c26", "osft-doc-0050/c5", "osft-doc-0050/c6", "osft-doc-0050/c70", "osft-doc-0050/c82", "osft-doc-0050/c84", "osft-doc-0050/c86", "osft-doc-0050/c90", "osft-doc-0050/c91", "osft-doc-0050/c93", "osft-doc-0084/c4", "osft-doc-0084/c7", "osft-doc-0108/c17", "osft-doc-0150/c20", "osft-doc-0441/c177", "osft-doc-0441/c257", "osft-doc-0441/c258", "osft-doc-0441/c259", "osft-doc-0441/c260", "osft-doc-0441/c34", "osft-doc-0633/c53", "osft-doc-0846/c3", "osft-doc-1373/c181", "osft-doc-1373/c428", "osft-doc-1373/c435", "osft-doc-1737/c33", "osft-doc-1869/c53", "osft-doc-0050/c158" ], "clusterMemberOrder": [ "osft-doc-1869/c53", "osft-doc-0150/c206", "osft-doc-0050/c157", "osft-doc-1869/c51", "osft-doc-0050/c19", "open-science-source-06/c51", "osft-doc-0150/c91", "open-science-source-50/c30", "osft-doc-0050/c95", "osft-doc-0084/c4", "open-science-source-37-c1/c130", "osft-doc-0050/c84", "osft-doc-0050/c18", "osft-doc-0050/c141", "osft-doc-0150/c20", "osft-doc-0050/c26", "osft-doc-0150/c105", "osft-doc-1449/c416", "osft-doc-0050/c64", "osft-doc-0050/c28", "osft-doc-1327/c770", "open-science-source-06/c188", "osft-doc-0050/c140", "osft-doc-1373/c349", "open-science-source-37-c1/c159", "osft-doc-0050/c133", "osft-doc-0084/c7", "osft-doc-0050/c11", "osft-doc-0050/c131", "osft-doc-0441/c257", "open-science-source-12/c190", "osft-doc-1327/c780", "osft-doc-1373/c431", "osft-doc-0150/c207", "osft-doc-0050/c187", "osft-doc-0730/c12", "osft-doc-0050/c158", "osft-doc-0050/c21", "osft-doc-0050/c149", "osft-doc-0504/c44", "osft-doc-0050/c130", "osft-doc-0050/c194", "osft-doc-0050/c139", "osft-doc-0050/c150", "osft-doc-0050/c153", "osft-doc-1459/c578", "open-science-source-24-c9/c47", "osft-doc-0050/c5", "osft-doc-0441/c259", "osft-doc-1373/c430", "osft-doc-0050/c198", "open-science-source-37-c1/c189", "open-science-source-55/c31", "osft-doc-0441/c177", "osft-doc-1373/c428", "osft-doc-0050/c93", "osft-doc-1459/c195", "osft-doc-0050/c146", "osft-doc-0050/c82", "osft-doc-0050/c25", "osft-doc-1373/c97", "osft-doc-0050/c132", "osft-doc-0050/c156", "osft-doc-1327/c170", "osft-doc-0050/c70", "osft-doc-1373/c435", "open-science-source-37-c2/c17", "osft-doc-0050/c6", "osft-doc-0050/c86", "open-science-source-36/c292", "open-science-source-37-c2/c154", "osft-doc-0050/c168", "osft-doc-0211/c28", "osft-doc-0441/c1", "osft-doc-1373/c198", "osft-doc-1737/c33", "open-science-source-03/c11", "osft-doc-0050/c83", "osft-doc-0633/c53", "osft-doc-0441/c260", "osft-doc-1373/c181", "osft-doc-0050/c91", "osft-doc-0108/c17", "open-science-source-03/c160", "osft-doc-0050/c90", "open-science-source-38/c191", "osft-doc-0441/c34", "osft-doc-0050/c119", "osft-doc-0951/c16", "osft-doc-0441/c258", "osft-doc-0050/c125", "osft-doc-0050/c195", "osft-doc-0846/c3", "open-science-source-42/c246" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 94, "claims": 233, "documents": 48 } }, { "id": "bu-010", "kind": "mixed", "name": "Governments, institutions, and stakeholders should take wide-ranging action to build, fund, and mandate open science.", "definition": "Members call on a broad set of actors — Member States, research institutions, federal agencies, universities, publishers, and library consortia — to take concrete steps that advance open science: developing enabling policies and cultures, building repositories and shared infrastructure, setting deadlines for public access to publications and data, redirecting subscription/APC spending into open funding mechanisms, and supporting citizen science, licensing reform, and public trust in research. A new position belongs here if it prescribes an institutional or governmental action meant to implement, fund, or coordinate some part of the open science transition. It does NOT belong here if it instead defines what open science is, states a value or principle in the abstract without an actionable step, or reports a narrow empirical fact about a single named tool, project, or organization rather than a generalizable action for stakeholders.", "coherence": "low", "subpositions": [ { "statement": "Member States should build enabling national policies, culture, and incentives for open science.", "members": [ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 18, 20, 25, 38, 40, 65 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0785/c7", "osft-doc-0002/c28", "osft-doc-0785/c5", "osft-doc-0785/c1", "osft-doc-0002/c36", "open-science-source-03/c154", "osft-doc-0068/c39", "open-science-source-03/c48", "open-science-source-03/c169", "osft-doc-0068/c50", "open-science-source-03/c164", "open-science-source-03/c165" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Institutions should launch repositories, open access policies, and shared scholarly infrastructure.", "members": [ 7, 9, 10, 11, 15, 17, 19, 26, 30, 32, 49, 56, 57, 77 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1373/c192", "osft-doc-1673/c45", "osft-doc-1373/c100", "osft-doc-1373/c136", "osft-doc-1459/c101", "osft-doc-1459/c196", "osft-doc-1459/c127", "osft-doc-1373/c120", "osft-doc-1373/c170", "osft-doc-1373/c172", "osft-doc-1459/c141", "osft-doc-1373/c96", "osft-doc-1373/c117", "osft-doc-1673/c59" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Funders and agencies should mandate timely public access to publications and data.", "members": [ 13, 14, 22, 27, 33, 35, 52 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1646/c31", "osft-doc-1646/c30", "open-science-source-34/c1", "osft-doc-1646/c34", "open-science-source-34/c10", "open-science-source-34/c2", "open-science-source-34/c48" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "New financing and business models should redirect funds toward open, non-commercial systems.", "members": [ 39, 44, 55, 63, 74, 75, 78, 90 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-10/c159", "osft-doc-1124/c28", "osft-doc-1459/c187", "open-science-source-25/c43", "osft-doc-1373/c558", "osft-doc-1373/c79", "osft-doc-1373/c82", "osft-doc-1373/c152" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Citizen science and public trust in research should be supported and expanded.", "members": [ 5, 48, 61, 81, 82, 84, 86, 87 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-03/c163", "osft-doc-1283/c124", "osft-doc-1373/c187", "open-science-source-37-c2/c95", "osft-doc-0825/c36", "osft-doc-0825/c2", "osft-doc-0825/c31", "open-science-source-19/c19" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Vague urgent calls for new solutions and change lack a specified mechanism.", "members": [ 43, 51, 54, 62, 64, 83, 88, 89 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1327/c374", "osft-doc-0825/c1", "osft-doc-1327/c574", "osft-doc-1327/c220", "open-science-source-05/c37", "osft-doc-0114/c6", "osft-doc-0825/c34", "osft-doc-0825/c35" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" } ], "outliers": [ { "rep": "osft-doc-1459/c144", "text": "Consortia such as the German Projekt DEAL could provide examples of how to take the first step towards this at a national level.", "why": "Cites a single named consortium (Projekt DEAL) as an example rather than a generalizable action" }, { "rep": "osft-doc-1373/c150", "text": "OpenAIRE National Open Access Desks could provide input and facilitate communication between all stakeholders towards establishing national guides.", "why": "Describes a specific existing service (OpenAIRE Desks), not a prescribed action" }, { "rep": "osft-doc-1373/c85", "text": "Research institutes should help inform researchers about the Author Alliance termination of transfer tool to help them retain their rights as authors.", "why": "Refers to informing researchers about one named external tool" }, { "rep": "osft-doc-1373/c136", "text": "National bodies should sign on to the Global Sustainability Coalition for Open Science Services.", "why": "Asks bodies to join one specific named coalition" }, { "rep": "open-science-source-38/c43", "text": "Other organizations should support and adopt the principles of the Barcelona Declaration on Open Research Information.", "why": "Asks adoption of one specific named declaration's principles" }, { "rep": "osft-doc-1373/c137", "text": "National bodies should investigate coalitions with the Open Research Funders Group.", "why": "Asks investigation of coalition with one specific named group" }, { "rep": "osft-doc-1459/c457", "text": "The principles and practices outlined in the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment and the Leiden Manifesto should be adopted.", "why": "Endorses two specific named external documents rather than a general action" }, { "rep": "osft-doc-1373/c499", "text": "Discussion is needed to resolve frictions between a Scholarly Commons model for research and its operation within a capitalistic framework.", "why": "Frames an abstract ideological tension rather than an actionable step" } ], "clusterStats": { "size": 91, "claims": 236, "documents": 48, "meanIntraCos": 0.828, "minIntraCos": 0.758 }, "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0002/c27", "osft-doc-0002/c28", "open-science-source-03/c48", "osft-doc-1673/c59", "open-science-source-34/c10", "osft-doc-0002/c36", "open-science-source-10/c159", "osft-doc-1373/c583", "osft-doc-1373/c99", "osft-doc-1459/c187", "osft-doc-1646/c31", "osft-doc-0785/c1", "osft-doc-0138/c21", "osft-doc-1373/c120", "osft-doc-1459/c141", "osft-doc-0504/c13", "osft-doc-1124/c28", "osft-doc-1327/c220", "osft-doc-1373/c150", "osft-doc-1373/c152", "osft-doc-1373/c170", "osft-doc-1373/c172", "osft-doc-1373/c187", "osft-doc-1373/c213", "osft-doc-1373/c217", "osft-doc-1373/c315", "osft-doc-1373/c582", "osft-doc-1373/c82", "osft-doc-1373/c96", "osft-doc-1459/c196", "osft-doc-1646/c34", "open-science-source-25/c35", "open-science-source-34/c1", "osft-doc-0068/c39", "osft-doc-1327/c374", "open-science-source-29/c11", "open-science-source-34/c2", "osft-doc-0504/c51", "osft-doc-1373/c117", "osft-doc-1459/c457", "osft-doc-1373/c160", "open-science-source-03/c154", "open-science-source-03/c163", "open-science-source-03/c164", "open-science-source-03/c165", "open-science-source-03/c167", "open-science-source-03/c169", "open-science-source-05/c37", "open-science-source-10/c149", "open-science-source-19/c19", "open-science-source-25/c43", "open-science-source-34/c48", "open-science-source-37-c2/c95", "open-science-source-38/c43", "open-science-source-41/c222", "osft-doc-0050/c200", "osft-doc-0068/c50", "osft-doc-0114/c6", "osft-doc-0504/c27", "osft-doc-0504/c31", "osft-doc-0504/c32", "osft-doc-0785/c5", "osft-doc-0785/c7", "osft-doc-0825/c1", "osft-doc-0825/c2", "osft-doc-0825/c31", "osft-doc-0825/c34", "osft-doc-0825/c35", "osft-doc-0825/c36", "osft-doc-1283/c124", "osft-doc-1327/c574", "osft-doc-1373/c100", "osft-doc-1373/c136", "osft-doc-1373/c137", "osft-doc-1373/c192", "osft-doc-1373/c197", "osft-doc-1373/c498", "osft-doc-1373/c499", "osft-doc-1373/c53", "osft-doc-1373/c558", "osft-doc-1373/c79", "osft-doc-1373/c85", "osft-doc-1459/c101", "osft-doc-1459/c127", "osft-doc-1459/c144", "osft-doc-1459/c203", "osft-doc-1459/c46", "osft-doc-1459/c70", "osft-doc-1646/c30", "osft-doc-1673/c45", "osft-doc-1373/c497" ], "clusterMemberOrder": [ "osft-doc-0785/c7", "osft-doc-0002/c28", "osft-doc-0785/c5", "osft-doc-0785/c1", "osft-doc-0002/c36", "open-science-source-03/c163", "open-science-source-03/c154", "osft-doc-1373/c192", "osft-doc-0002/c27", "osft-doc-1673/c45", "osft-doc-1373/c100", "osft-doc-1373/c136", "osft-doc-1459/c457", "osft-doc-1646/c31", "osft-doc-1646/c30", "osft-doc-1459/c101", "open-science-source-03/c167", "osft-doc-1459/c196", "osft-doc-0068/c39", "osft-doc-1459/c127", "open-science-source-03/c48", "osft-doc-0504/c13", "open-science-source-34/c1", "osft-doc-1373/c217", "osft-doc-1373/c160", "open-science-source-03/c169", "osft-doc-1373/c120", "osft-doc-1646/c34", "osft-doc-0504/c32", "osft-doc-0504/c51", "osft-doc-1373/c170", "osft-doc-1373/c197", "osft-doc-1373/c172", "open-science-source-34/c10", "osft-doc-1373/c99", "open-science-source-34/c2", "osft-doc-0138/c21", "osft-doc-0504/c31", "osft-doc-0068/c50", "open-science-source-10/c159", "open-science-source-03/c164", "open-science-source-38/c43", "osft-doc-1459/c46", "osft-doc-1327/c374", "osft-doc-1124/c28", "osft-doc-0504/c27", "open-science-source-29/c11", "osft-doc-1459/c70", "osft-doc-1283/c124", "osft-doc-1459/c141", "open-science-source-41/c222", "osft-doc-0825/c1", "open-science-source-34/c48", "osft-doc-1459/c203", "osft-doc-1327/c574", "osft-doc-1459/c187", "osft-doc-1373/c96", "osft-doc-1373/c117", "open-science-source-25/c35", "osft-doc-1373/c583", "osft-doc-1373/c137", "osft-doc-1373/c187", "osft-doc-1327/c220", "open-science-source-25/c43", "open-science-source-05/c37", "open-science-source-03/c165", "osft-doc-1373/c315", "osft-doc-1373/c582", "osft-doc-1373/c150", "osft-doc-1459/c144", "osft-doc-1373/c213", "osft-doc-1373/c53", "open-science-source-10/c149", "osft-doc-1373/c85", "osft-doc-1373/c558", "osft-doc-1373/c79", "osft-doc-0050/c200", "osft-doc-1673/c59", "osft-doc-1373/c82", "osft-doc-1373/c499", "osft-doc-1373/c497", "open-science-source-37-c2/c95", "osft-doc-0825/c36", "osft-doc-0114/c6", "osft-doc-0825/c2", "osft-doc-1373/c498", "osft-doc-0825/c31", "open-science-source-19/c19", "osft-doc-0825/c34", "osft-doc-0825/c35", "osft-doc-1373/c152" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 91, "claims": 236, "documents": 48 } }, { "id": "bu-011", "kind": "mixed", "name": "Open science practices, infrastructure, and teaching improve research quality and benefit society", "definition": "Members assert that open practices, infrastructure, and principles (open data, open workflows, transparent peer review, open licensing, open teaching) make research more transparent, reproducible, rigorous, trustworthy, and accountable, while also broadening participation to societal actors, the public, students, and communities beyond the traditional scientific community. The cluster also includes definitional statements describing open science as an inclusive construct built from several \"pillars\" (open knowledge, open engagement, open infrastructures, science communication, dialogue with other knowledge systems) that serve science and society jointly. A distinct thread holds that integrating open/reproducible scholarship into teaching and curricula (including named programs) builds skills, literacy, and equity among students and educators. It excludes claims about specific funding, licensing costs, or policy mandates (e.g., who pays for access, mandate compliance) and about particular tools' technical features unrelated to these quality, inclusion, or pedagogical benefits.", "coherence": "medium", "subpositions": [ { "statement": "Open practices increase quality, rigor, reproducibility, and integrity of research.", "members": [ 1, 2, 3, 4, 11, 14, 29, 30, 31, 44, 46, 54, 59, 61, 62, 69, 72, 75, 77, 78, 80, 81, 83, 88 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-03/c13", "open-science-source-03/c15", "open-science-source-03/c14", "open-science-source-37-c1/c107", "osft-doc-0411/c6", "osft-doc-1646/c4", "osft-doc-1327/c650", "osft-doc-0411/c5", "open-science-source-03/c16", "osft-doc-1878/c34", "open-science-source-03/c134", "osft-doc-0441/c24", "osft-doc-0441/c23", "osft-doc-0825/c26", "open-science-source-20/c33", "osft-doc-0411/c43", "osft-doc-1449/c407", "osft-doc-0441/c20", "open-science-source-18/c788", "open-science-source-24-c9/c43", "osft-doc-0441/c19", "open-science-source-36/c175", "osft-doc-0441/c27", "open-science-source-24-c9/c46" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Open science is an inclusive construct built on several defined pillars.", "members": [ 10, 12, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 23, 24, 32, 35, 52, 55, 56, 63, 67, 70, 82 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-03/c25", "osft-doc-0411/c19", "osft-doc-0002/c2", "osft-doc-0068/c28", "open-science-source-03/c121", "open-science-source-03/c57", "open-science-source-42/c284", "open-science-source-03/c60", "open-science-source-03/c55", "osft-doc-0975/c29", "open-science-source-03/c59", "open-science-source-03/c58", "open-science-source-03/c61", "osft-doc-0951/c8", "osft-doc-0411/c37", "osft-doc-0951/c6", "open-science-source-03/c24", "osft-doc-1702/c8" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Open science engages societal actors and the public, democratizing scientific participation.", "members": [ 0, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 18, 21, 22, 26, 27, 33, 34, 36, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, 47, 48, 49, 50, 53, 57, 58, 60, 64, 65 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-37-c1/c106", "open-science-source-42/c290", "osft-doc-1253/c13", "osft-doc-0002/c6", "osft-doc-1283/c10", "osft-doc-0441/c119", "osft-doc-1283/c11", "open-science-source-42/c881", "open-science-source-03/c123", "open-science-source-25/c10", "open-science-source-03/c105", "osft-doc-0441/c117", "osft-doc-1878/c116", "open-science-source-03/c42", "osft-doc-0441/c124", "osft-doc-0002/c14", "osft-doc-1878/c35", "osft-doc-0002/c9", "osft-doc-0825/c32", "open-science-source-37-c2/c7", "osft-doc-1031/c22", "osft-doc-1031/c24", "osft-doc-0441/c120", "open-science-source-03/c46", "osft-doc-1031/c23", "osft-doc-0441/c123", "osft-doc-0441/c121", "open-science-source-03/c23", "osft-doc-1327/c1127", "osft-doc-0441/c7", "osft-doc-1031/c26", "osft-doc-1283/c22" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Teaching open and reproducible scholarship builds student and educator skills and equity.", "members": [ 25, 37, 66, 68, 71, 73, 74, 76, 79, 84, 85, 86, 87, 89, 90 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0441/c118", "osft-doc-0002/c10", "open-science-source-24-c7/c11", "open-science-source-24-c7/c12", "osft-doc-1878/c65", "osft-doc-1878/c55", "osft-doc-0441/c139", "osft-doc-0441/c9", "osft-doc-0441/c166", "osft-doc-0441/c8", "osft-doc-1878/c110", "open-science-source-24-c7/c13", "open-science-source-24-c7/c14", "osft-doc-0441/c192", "osft-doc-0441/c203" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" } ], "outliers": [ { "rep": "open-science-source-24-c7/c11", "text": "The NASA TOPS initiative has developed an Open Science 101 Curriculum that anyone can use to improve their understanding of open science workflows.", "why": "Describes a specific named curriculum product rather than a general claim" }, { "rep": "open-science-source-24-c7/c12", "text": "The NASA TOPS initiative has developed an Open Science 101 Curriculum that anyone can use to gain the skills needed to share their research effectively.", "why": "Describes NASA TOPS curriculum feature, too narrow/specific" }, { "rep": "open-science-source-24-c7/c13", "text": "The Open Science 101 Curriculum draws from existing best practices from academia, industry, and other stakeholder communities.", "why": "Describes the sourcing of a specific curriculum, not a general open-science claim" }, { "rep": "open-science-source-24-c7/c14", "text": "The Open Science 101 Curriculum is a valuable resource for intramural and extramural researchers and federal government staff working on research sharing.", "why": "Endorses a specific curriculum's audience utility, not a general position" }, { "rep": "osft-doc-0441/c192", "text": "Each FORRT cluster is broken down into sub-categories to provide educators with useful information on the extent of open scholarship and how topics are connected to one another.", "why": "Describes FORRT's internal sub-categorization scheme, a tool detail" }, { "rep": "osft-doc-0441/c203", "text": "Collecting anonymized information from educators makes it possible to assess and track how much open and reproducible content is being integrated into courses across institutions and countries.", "why": "Describes a data-collection method for tracking educator adoption, not a benefit claim" } ], "clusterStats": { "size": 91, "claims": 254, "documents": 47, "meanIntraCos": 0.86, "minIntraCos": 0.784 }, "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0002/c2", "osft-doc-0411/c6", "open-science-source-03/c13", "open-science-source-27/c32", "osft-doc-0002/c10", "osft-doc-0411/c37", "osft-doc-1449/c407", "osft-doc-1283/c22", "osft-doc-1283/c11", "open-science-source-03/c23", "osft-doc-0825/c32", "open-science-source-03/c15", "osft-doc-0441/c20", "open-science-source-03/c134", "osft-doc-1646/c17", "open-science-source-03/c14", "osft-doc-1646/c4", "open-science-source-25/c10", "open-science-source-03/c123", "osft-doc-0068/c28", "osft-doc-1031/c23", "open-science-source-03/c55", "open-science-source-03/c105", "open-science-source-03/c60", "open-science-source-24-c9/c46", "open-science-source-37-c1/c107", "osft-doc-1031/c26", "open-science-source-20/c33", "osft-doc-0441/c139", "osft-doc-1878/c110", "osft-doc-0441/c121", "osft-doc-0441/c8", "osft-doc-0002/c14", "osft-doc-1283/c10", "osft-doc-1327/c650", "osft-doc-0002/c9", "open-science-source-42/c290", "osft-doc-0002/c6", "osft-doc-1253/c13", "open-science-source-37-c2/c7", "osft-doc-1031/c24", "osft-doc-1878/c34", "osft-doc-1878/c55", "open-science-source-24-c9/c43", "open-science-source-42/c881", "osft-doc-0441/c27", "osft-doc-0825/c26", "osft-doc-1878/c65", "open-science-source-03/c121", "open-science-source-03/c16", "open-science-source-03/c24", "open-science-source-03/c25", "open-science-source-03/c42", "open-science-source-03/c46", "open-science-source-03/c57", "open-science-source-03/c58", "open-science-source-03/c59", "open-science-source-03/c61", "open-science-source-18/c788", "open-science-source-24-c7/c11", "open-science-source-24-c7/c12", "open-science-source-24-c7/c13", "open-science-source-24-c7/c14", "open-science-source-36/c175", "open-science-source-37-c1/c106", "open-science-source-42/c284", "osft-doc-0411/c19", "osft-doc-0411/c43", "osft-doc-0411/c5", "osft-doc-0441/c117", "osft-doc-0441/c118", "osft-doc-0441/c119", "osft-doc-0441/c120", "osft-doc-0441/c123", "osft-doc-0441/c124", "osft-doc-0441/c166", "osft-doc-0441/c19", "osft-doc-0441/c192", "osft-doc-0441/c203", "osft-doc-0441/c23", "osft-doc-0441/c24", "osft-doc-0441/c7", "osft-doc-0441/c9", "osft-doc-0951/c6", "osft-doc-0951/c8", "osft-doc-0975/c29", "osft-doc-1031/c22", "osft-doc-1327/c1127", "osft-doc-1702/c8", "osft-doc-1878/c116", "osft-doc-1878/c35" ], "clusterMemberOrder": [ "open-science-source-37-c1/c106", "open-science-source-03/c13", "open-science-source-03/c15", "open-science-source-03/c14", "open-science-source-37-c1/c107", "open-science-source-42/c290", "osft-doc-1253/c13", "osft-doc-0002/c6", "osft-doc-1283/c10", "osft-doc-0441/c119", "open-science-source-03/c25", "osft-doc-0411/c6", "osft-doc-0411/c19", "osft-doc-1283/c11", "osft-doc-1646/c4", "osft-doc-0002/c2", "osft-doc-0068/c28", "open-science-source-03/c121", "open-science-source-42/c881", "open-science-source-03/c57", "open-science-source-42/c284", "open-science-source-03/c123", "open-science-source-25/c10", "open-science-source-03/c60", "open-science-source-03/c55", "osft-doc-0441/c118", "open-science-source-03/c105", "osft-doc-0441/c117", "osft-doc-1646/c17", "osft-doc-1327/c650", "osft-doc-0411/c5", "open-science-source-03/c16", "osft-doc-0975/c29", "osft-doc-1878/c116", "open-science-source-03/c42", "open-science-source-03/c59", "osft-doc-0441/c124", "osft-doc-0002/c10", "osft-doc-0002/c14", "osft-doc-1878/c35", "osft-doc-0002/c9", "osft-doc-0825/c32", "open-science-source-37-c2/c7", "osft-doc-1031/c22", "osft-doc-1878/c34", "osft-doc-1031/c24", "open-science-source-03/c134", "osft-doc-0441/c120", "open-science-source-03/c46", "osft-doc-1031/c23", "osft-doc-0441/c123", "open-science-source-27/c32", "open-science-source-03/c58", "osft-doc-0441/c121", "osft-doc-0441/c24", "open-science-source-03/c61", "osft-doc-0951/c8", "open-science-source-03/c23", "osft-doc-1327/c1127", "osft-doc-0441/c23", "osft-doc-0441/c7", "osft-doc-0825/c26", "open-science-source-20/c33", "osft-doc-0411/c37", "osft-doc-1031/c26", "osft-doc-1283/c22", "open-science-source-24-c7/c11", "osft-doc-0951/c6", "open-science-source-24-c7/c12", "osft-doc-0411/c43", "open-science-source-03/c24", "osft-doc-1878/c65", "osft-doc-1449/c407", "osft-doc-1878/c55", "osft-doc-0441/c139", "osft-doc-0441/c20", "osft-doc-0441/c9", "open-science-source-18/c788", "open-science-source-24-c9/c43", "osft-doc-0441/c166", "osft-doc-0441/c19", "open-science-source-36/c175", "osft-doc-1702/c8", "osft-doc-0441/c27", "osft-doc-0441/c8", "osft-doc-1878/c110", "open-science-source-24-c7/c13", "open-science-source-24-c7/c14", "open-science-source-24-c9/c46", "osft-doc-0441/c192", "osft-doc-0441/c203" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 91, "claims": 254, "documents": 47 } }, { "id": "bu-012", "kind": "mixed", "name": "Openness means research data, tools, and outputs are free of restrictions on use and reuse.", "definition": "Members converge on defining \"open\" as freedom from legal, technical, or licensing restrictions on accessing, using, modifying, and redistributing research data, code, hardware, and publications, and on the technical activities (text/data mining, AI use, verification) that such unrestricted reuse enables. A second strand asserts that open-source software, infrastructure, and standardized retrieval protocols should be preferred over proprietary alternatives. A third strand is normative advice for individuals to practice openness through public sharing, commenting, and community engagement (e.g., preprints, presentations, discussions). Positions about openness in domains unrelated to research outputs and tools (e.g., general government transparency law) fall outside this cluster, as do positions about funding models or economic barriers to access.", "coherence": "medium", "subpositions": [ { "statement": "Openness means data and content are free of restrictions on use and reuse.", "members": [ 0, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 16, 18, 24, 26, 32, 36 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0411/c15", "osft-doc-1373/c243", "open-science-source-05/c64", "open-science-source-15-c2/c145", "open-science-source-05/c65", "open-science-source-04/c152", "osft-doc-0731/c6", "open-science-source-38/c298", "open-science-source-26/c86", "open-science-source-38/c291", "open-science-source-09/c63", "open-science-source-38/c290", "osft-doc-0731/c5" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Unrestricted reuse enables text/data mining, AI use, and result verification.", "members": [ 1, 2, 4, 13 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-24-c8/c51", "open-science-source-24-c8/c50", "open-science-source-24-c8/c52", "open-science-source-24-c1/c21" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Open source software, hardware, and infrastructure should be preferred over proprietary tools.", "members": [ 10, 14, 20, 22, 23, 30, 33 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-24-c2/c57", "open-science-source-03/c83", "osft-doc-1612/c59", "open-science-source-02/c28", "osft-doc-1373/c22", "osft-doc-1373/c321", "osft-doc-1673/c359" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Individuals should practice openness by publicly sharing, commenting, and discussing work.", "members": [ 15, 17, 19, 25, 27, 28, 29, 31, 38 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1878/c287", "osft-doc-0777/c27", "osft-doc-1373/c52", "osft-doc-1373/c32", "osft-doc-0441/c28", "open-science-source-22/c11", "osft-doc-1373/c39", "osft-doc-0441/c296", "osft-doc-1373/c31" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Standardized protocols let (meta)data and archives be found and retrieved interoperably.", "members": [ 6, 34, 35, 36, 37 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0645/c89", "osft-doc-0504/c30", "osft-doc-0504/c29", "osft-doc-0731/c5", "osft-doc-0645/c88" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" } ], "outliers": [], "clusterStats": { "size": 39, "claims": 90, "documents": 43, "meanIntraCos": 0.824, "minIntraCos": 0.746 }, "starIds": [ "open-science-source-09/c63", "open-science-source-24-c8/c50", "osft-doc-1612/c59", "osft-doc-1373/c32", "open-science-source-16-c1/c8", "open-science-source-38/c291", "open-science-source-38/c290", "open-science-source-38/c298", "open-science-source-02/c28", "open-science-source-04/c152", "open-science-source-03/c83", "open-science-source-05/c64", "open-science-source-05/c65", "open-science-source-15-c2/c145", "open-science-source-22/c11", "open-science-source-24-c1/c21", "open-science-source-24-c2/c57", "open-science-source-24-c8/c51", "open-science-source-24-c8/c52", "open-science-source-26/c86", "osft-doc-0411/c15", "osft-doc-0441/c28", "osft-doc-0441/c296", "osft-doc-0504/c29", "osft-doc-0504/c30", "osft-doc-0645/c88", "osft-doc-0645/c89", "osft-doc-0731/c5", "osft-doc-0731/c6", "osft-doc-0777/c27", "osft-doc-1373/c22", "osft-doc-1373/c243", "osft-doc-1373/c31", "osft-doc-1373/c321", "osft-doc-1373/c327", "osft-doc-1373/c39", "osft-doc-1373/c52", "osft-doc-1673/c359", "osft-doc-1878/c287" ], "clusterMemberOrder": [ "osft-doc-0411/c15", "open-science-source-24-c8/c51", "open-science-source-24-c8/c50", "osft-doc-1373/c243", "open-science-source-24-c8/c52", "open-science-source-05/c64", "osft-doc-0645/c89", "open-science-source-15-c2/c145", "open-science-source-05/c65", "open-science-source-04/c152", "open-science-source-24-c2/c57", "osft-doc-0731/c6", "osft-doc-1373/c327", "open-science-source-24-c1/c21", "open-science-source-03/c83", "osft-doc-1878/c287", "open-science-source-38/c298", "osft-doc-0777/c27", "open-science-source-26/c86", "osft-doc-1373/c52", "osft-doc-1612/c59", "open-science-source-16-c1/c8", "open-science-source-02/c28", "osft-doc-1373/c22", "open-science-source-38/c291", "osft-doc-1373/c32", "open-science-source-09/c63", "osft-doc-0441/c28", "open-science-source-22/c11", "osft-doc-1373/c39", "osft-doc-1373/c321", "osft-doc-0441/c296", "open-science-source-38/c290", "osft-doc-1673/c359", "osft-doc-0504/c30", "osft-doc-0504/c29", "osft-doc-0731/c5", "osft-doc-0645/c88", "osft-doc-1373/c31" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 39, "claims": 90, "documents": 43 } }, { "id": "bu-013", "kind": "mixed", "name": "Research assessment must value diverse, quality outputs while peer review needs reform amid overload", "definition": "Members assert two related but distinct positions: (1) research evaluation by funders, institutions, and metrics-designers should recognise diverse research outputs, disciplinary context, and quality over narrow quantitative indicators like the Journal Impact Factor, often citing frameworks such as DORA; and (2) peer review, as the traditional gatekeeping and quality-control mechanism for papers and grants, faces growing structural problems (capacity, workload, response rates, reliability) that call for reforms such as greater transparency, openness, or new models. A new position belongs here if it addresses how research(ers) should be evaluated/rewarded (metrics, indicators, outputs, career assessment) OR describes peer review's function, strain, or reform. It would NOT belong if it concerns unrelated open-science mechanics such as data sharing, preprints, or funding models with no link to assessment or review.", "coherence": "medium", "subpositions": [ { "statement": "Assessment should value diverse outputs and quality over narrow quantitative metrics.", "members": [ 0, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 52, 53, 61, 74 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-21/c98", "osft-doc-0296/c1", "osft-doc-1047/c57", "osft-doc-1673/c66", "open-science-source-12/c194", "osft-doc-1673/c270", "open-science-source-45/c52", "osft-doc-1283/c60", "open-science-source-10/c90", "open-science-source-03/c255", "osft-doc-0142/c648", "open-science-source-03/c258", "osft-doc-1459/c431", "osft-doc-1373/c72", "osft-doc-0142/c649", "osft-doc-0108/c51", "osft-doc-0108/c53", "osft-doc-0142/c30", "osft-doc-0020/c7", "osft-doc-0142/c29", "osft-doc-0142/c1293", "osft-doc-1373/c113", "osft-doc-0108/c9", "osft-doc-0050/c179", "open-science-source-04/c125" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Assessors should reduce reliance on journal impact factor and publication-level metrics.", "members": [ 13, 19, 43, 54, 56 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0108/c49", "osft-doc-0108/c36", "osft-doc-0108/c52", "osft-doc-0108/c28", "osft-doc-0108/c32" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Institutions should formally adopt frameworks like DORA or the Hong Kong Principles.", "members": [ 24, 28, 57 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1459/c120", "osft-doc-1459/c119", "osft-doc-0441/c310" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Peer review is the traditional, expert-based mechanism for gatekeeping research quality.", "members": [ 22, 26, 27, 30, 32, 33, 40, 42, 44, 51, 58, 59, 60, 68, 69, 79 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-18/c144", "open-science-source-04/c111", "osft-doc-1327/c822", "osft-doc-0108/c8", "osft-doc-1327/c775", "osft-doc-0142/c24", "open-science-source-04/c109", "open-science-source-18/c1", "osft-doc-0108/c18", "open-science-source-18/c96", "osft-doc-1353/c146", "osft-doc-1047/c5", "open-science-source-18/c47", "open-science-source-18/c220", "open-science-source-04/c39", "open-science-source-36/c207" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Peer review is increasingly overloaded, slow, and under-resourced.", "members": [ 48, 62, 63, 64, 72, 73, 75, 77, 78, 80 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-06/c291", "open-science-source-18/c132", "open-science-source-43/c93", "open-science-source-55/c35", "open-science-source-18/c345", "open-science-source-18/c34", "open-science-source-18/c682", "open-science-source-18/c355", "open-science-source-04/c35", "osft-doc-0142/c773" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Peer review should become more transparent, open, or otherwise reformed.", "members": [ 1, 50, 70, 71, 81 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-18/c700", "open-science-source-18/c20", "open-science-source-17/c143", "open-science-source-18/c407", "osft-doc-1327/c1114" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" } ], "outliers": [ { "rep": "osft-doc-1373/c287", "text": "Conflict resolution in scholarly communication can come in a range of flavours, based around key issues such as academic freedom, governance structures, and financing.", "why": "about conflict resolution/governance/financing, not assessment or peer review" }, { "rep": "open-science-source-06/c190", "text": "The changes needed in scholarly communication need to be quantified.", "why": "vague call to quantify scholarly-communication change, unrelated to metrics or review" }, { "rep": "osft-doc-0142/c1328", "text": "The different systems operated by HEIs, funders and publishers need to interoperate.", "why": "about system interoperability, not evaluation content" }, { "rep": "open-science-source-25/c39", "text": "Universities must evaluate how to support alternative publishing business models in a manner that promotes openness, equity, trust, and sustainability in scholarly research.", "why": "about publishing business models, not assessment or peer review" }, { "rep": "open-science-source-06/c208", "text": "The scholarly community should be concerned with the creation of research objects as part of its daily research routines.", "why": "vague call about creating 'research objects', tangential to evaluation" } ], "clusterStats": { "size": 82, "claims": 278, "documents": 42, "meanIntraCos": 0.825, "minIntraCos": 0.744 }, "starIds": [ "open-science-source-12/c194", "open-science-source-10/c90", "osft-doc-1283/c60", "osft-doc-0296/c1", "osft-doc-1673/c270", "osft-doc-0142/c648", "open-science-source-21/c98", "osft-doc-0142/c649", "osft-doc-1673/c66", "osft-doc-1373/c72", "osft-doc-1459/c431", "osft-doc-1459/c119", "osft-doc-1373/c570", "osft-doc-0020/c7", "osft-doc-0108/c49", "open-science-source-03/c255", "open-science-source-03/c258", "open-science-source-18/c96", "osft-doc-1283/c49", "osft-doc-0142/c773", "osft-doc-1047/c5", "osft-doc-1283/c50", "open-science-source-04/c35", "open-science-source-04/c111", "open-science-source-18/c1", "osft-doc-0108/c36", "open-science-source-45/c52", "open-science-source-04/c39", "open-science-source-04/c109", "open-science-source-18/c20", "open-science-source-18/c407", "open-science-source-36/c207", "osft-doc-0108/c8", "osft-doc-1373/c113", "osft-doc-0138/c7", "osft-doc-1327/c775", "osft-doc-1353/c146", "osft-doc-1047/c57", "open-science-source-18/c132", "osft-doc-0142/c30", "osft-doc-0296/c5", "osft-doc-1047/c37", "osft-doc-1459/c120", "open-science-source-06/c291", "open-science-source-18/c345", "open-science-source-43/c93", "osft-doc-0142/c29", "osft-doc-1327/c822", "open-science-source-04/c125", "open-science-source-06/c190", "open-science-source-06/c208", "open-science-source-10/c103", "open-science-source-17/c143", "open-science-source-18/c144", "open-science-source-18/c17", "open-science-source-18/c220", "open-science-source-18/c34", "open-science-source-18/c355", "open-science-source-18/c47", "open-science-source-18/c682", "open-science-source-18/c700", "open-science-source-25/c39", "open-science-source-33/c18", "open-science-source-55/c35", "open-science-source-55/c36", "osft-doc-0050/c179", "osft-doc-0108/c18", "osft-doc-0108/c28", "osft-doc-0108/c32", "osft-doc-0108/c51", "osft-doc-0108/c52", "osft-doc-0108/c53", "osft-doc-0108/c9", "osft-doc-0142/c1052", "osft-doc-0142/c1293", "osft-doc-0142/c1328", "osft-doc-0142/c24", "osft-doc-0142/c679", "osft-doc-0441/c310", "osft-doc-1327/c1114", "osft-doc-1373/c17", "osft-doc-1373/c287" ], "clusterMemberOrder": [ "open-science-source-21/c98", "open-science-source-18/c700", "osft-doc-0296/c5", "osft-doc-1047/c37", "osft-doc-0296/c1", "osft-doc-1047/c57", "osft-doc-1673/c66", "open-science-source-12/c194", "osft-doc-1673/c270", "open-science-source-45/c52", "osft-doc-1283/c60", "open-science-source-10/c90", "open-science-source-10/c103", "osft-doc-0108/c49", "open-science-source-03/c255", "osft-doc-0142/c648", "open-science-source-03/c258", "osft-doc-1459/c431", "osft-doc-1373/c72", "osft-doc-0108/c36", "open-science-source-25/c39", "osft-doc-0142/c649", "open-science-source-18/c144", "osft-doc-1283/c49", "osft-doc-1459/c120", "osft-doc-1373/c570", "open-science-source-04/c111", "osft-doc-1327/c822", "osft-doc-1459/c119", "osft-doc-0142/c679", "osft-doc-0108/c8", "open-science-source-33/c18", "osft-doc-1327/c775", "osft-doc-0142/c24", "osft-doc-1283/c50", "osft-doc-0108/c51", "osft-doc-0108/c53", "osft-doc-0142/c30", "osft-doc-0020/c7", "osft-doc-0142/c29", "open-science-source-04/c109", "osft-doc-0142/c1293", "open-science-source-18/c1", "osft-doc-0108/c52", "osft-doc-0108/c18", "osft-doc-0142/c1052", "open-science-source-06/c208", "open-science-source-06/c190", "open-science-source-06/c291", "open-science-source-55/c36", "open-science-source-18/c20", "open-science-source-18/c96", "osft-doc-1373/c113", "osft-doc-0108/c9", "osft-doc-0108/c28", "osft-doc-0138/c7", "osft-doc-0108/c32", "osft-doc-0441/c310", "osft-doc-1353/c146", "osft-doc-1047/c5", "open-science-source-18/c47", "osft-doc-0050/c179", "open-science-source-18/c132", "open-science-source-43/c93", "open-science-source-55/c35", "open-science-source-18/c17", "osft-doc-0142/c1328", "osft-doc-1373/c17", "open-science-source-18/c220", "open-science-source-04/c39", "open-science-source-17/c143", "open-science-source-18/c407", "open-science-source-18/c345", "open-science-source-18/c34", "open-science-source-04/c125", "open-science-source-18/c682", "osft-doc-1373/c287", "open-science-source-18/c355", "open-science-source-04/c35", "open-science-source-36/c207", "osft-doc-0142/c773", "osft-doc-1327/c1114" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 82, "claims": 278, "documents": 42 } }, { "id": "bu-014", "kind": "mixed", "name": "Science is a collaborative, global, multidisciplinary endeavor addressing societal challenges", "definition": "Members claim that science/scholarship is a collective, global public good pursued across natural, physical, biomedical, and social sciences, engineering and mathematics, and that solving major societal, economic, and environmental challenges requires broad collaboration across disciplines, countries, institutions, and societal stakeholders, sometimes including direct public participation (community science). A position belongs here if it asserts something about science's collaborative/global/interdisciplinary character, its scope of disciplines, or its role in tackling shared challenges. It does NOT belong if it instead describes a specific named program, office, or infrastructure's functions or mandate (e.g., a science advisor's duties, a national festival's activities, a data-infrastructure platform's services) or a jurisdiction-specific policy commitment, since those are operational/institutional claims rather than claims about the nature of science itself.", "coherence": "low", "subpositions": [ { "statement": "Science is a collective, global endeavor and public good.", "members": [ 0, 1, 4, 5, 48 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0441/c113", "open-science-source-22/c36", "open-science-source-03/c176", "open-science-source-03/c37", "osft-doc-0152/c4" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Science's scope includes natural, physical, biomedical, social sciences, engineering, mathematics.", "members": [ 2, 8, 11, 13, 29, 31, 52, 53, 56 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0951/c39", "osft-doc-0951/c36", "osft-doc-0951/c38", "osft-doc-0951/c37", "osft-doc-1771/c61", "osft-doc-1737/c69", "osft-doc-0105/c149", "osft-doc-1646/c56", "osft-doc-1373/c269" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Interdisciplinary, cross-sector collaboration is needed to address societal challenges.", "members": [ 3, 10, 14, 16, 17, 20, 22, 24, 32, 34, 41 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1327/c489", "open-science-source-03/c139", "osft-doc-1327/c1060", "open-science-source-03/c19", "open-science-source-03/c18", "open-science-source-45/c165", "osft-doc-1327/c238", "open-science-source-18/c521", "open-science-source-45/c162", "osft-doc-0900/c10", "osft-doc-0142/c184" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Science, technology and innovation provide solutions to global challenges.", "members": [ 7, 9, 12, 19, 21, 25, 26, 30, 37, 38, 43 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0825/c23", "osft-doc-1398/c25", "open-science-source-41/c31", "open-science-source-03/c4", "open-science-source-18/c519", "open-science-source-03/c3", "osft-doc-0441/c33", "open-science-source-41/c379", "osft-doc-0441/c334", "open-science-source-03/c2", "open-science-source-03/c5" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Community science enables public participation and crowdsourced resources.", "members": [ 18, 23, 33, 46 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1373/c397", "osft-doc-1373/c452", "osft-doc-1373/c450", "osft-doc-1373/c451" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" } ], "outliers": [ { "rep": "osft-doc-1771/c28", "text": "Canada should adopt an Open Science approach to federally funded scientific and research outputs.", "why": "Canada-specific federal policy commitment, not a claim about science's nature" }, { "rep": "osft-doc-0951/c26", "text": "The Chief Science Advisor should work with the federal science community to develop a framework for identifying research that should not be made openly available due to ethical, privacy, or security concerns.", "why": "Describes a specific advisor's task, not a general claim" }, { "rep": "osft-doc-1737/c54", "text": "The Chief Science Advisor could conduct the strategy-development exercise in partnership with the federal granting agencies, learned societies and provincial and territorial funders.", "why": "Institutional strategy-development detail specific to Canada" }, { "rep": "osft-doc-0951/c31", "text": "The evolving international context of open science should be monitored by the Chief Science Advisor.", "why": "Names a specific role monitoring international context" }, { "rep": "open-science-source-37-c1/c209", "text": "The National Open Science Festival facilitates knowledge and experience sharing by connecting people and organisations.", "why": "Describes a specific festival's function, not a general claim" }, { "rep": "open-science-source-37-c1/c205", "text": "The National Open Science Festival gives stakeholders interested in open science the opportunity to learn about open science practices and policy.", "why": "Describes festival's specific benefit to stakeholders" }, { "rep": "open-science-source-37-c1/c206", "text": "The National Open Science Festival is an important vehicle for Open Science NL to engage with the community.", "why": "Describes festival's role for a named organization" }, { "rep": "open-science-source-26/c79", "text": "RDA provides a platform for research communities, including small, technical, or sporadic ones.", "why": "Describes RDA platform's specific function" }, { "rep": "open-science-source-37-c1/c192", "text": "Communities, in the context of this Work Programme, are groups of people who share particular attitudes and common interests, meaning an interest in open science.", "why": "Defines 'communities' term for a specific work programme" }, { "rep": "osft-doc-1373/c270", "text": "Other terms such as e-Research and Digital Humanities describe similar practices across different communities.", "why": "Notes terminology (e-Research, Digital Humanities), not a substantive claim" } ], "clusterStats": { "size": 58, "claims": 152, "documents": 41, "meanIntraCos": 0.824, "minIntraCos": 0.754 }, "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1771/c28", "open-science-source-18/c521", "osft-doc-0441/c113", "osft-doc-0951/c31", "osft-doc-1327/c489", "open-science-source-45/c165", "osft-doc-0105/c149", "osft-doc-0152/c4", "open-science-source-41/c379", "osft-doc-0951/c36", "osft-doc-0951/c37", "osft-doc-0951/c38", "osft-doc-0951/c39", "osft-doc-1373/c270", "osft-doc-1646/c15", "osft-doc-1646/c56", "osft-doc-1737/c54", "osft-doc-1771/c61", "open-science-source-03/c176", "open-science-source-03/c18", "open-science-source-37-c1/c208", "open-science-source-41/c31", "osft-doc-1327/c1060", "open-science-source-03/c19", "open-science-source-22/c36", "open-science-source-37-c1/c209", "osft-doc-1398/c25", "osft-doc-1459/c487", "osft-doc-1737/c69", "open-science-source-37-c1/c206", "open-science-source-03/c139", "open-science-source-03/c2", "open-science-source-03/c3", "open-science-source-03/c37", "open-science-source-03/c4", "open-science-source-03/c5", "open-science-source-18/c519", "open-science-source-26/c79", "open-science-source-37-c1/c192", "open-science-source-37-c1/c205", "open-science-source-37-c1/c207", "open-science-source-45/c162", "open-science-source-54-c2/c40", "osft-doc-0142/c184", "osft-doc-0441/c33", "osft-doc-0441/c334", "osft-doc-0645/c22", "osft-doc-0825/c23", "osft-doc-0900/c10", "osft-doc-0932/c7", "osft-doc-0951/c26", "osft-doc-1327/c238", "osft-doc-1373/c269", "osft-doc-1373/c397", "osft-doc-1373/c450", "osft-doc-1373/c451", "osft-doc-1373/c452", "osft-doc-1646/c1" ], "clusterMemberOrder": [ "osft-doc-0441/c113", "open-science-source-22/c36", "osft-doc-0951/c39", "osft-doc-1327/c489", "open-science-source-03/c176", "open-science-source-03/c37", "osft-doc-1459/c487", "osft-doc-0825/c23", "osft-doc-0951/c36", "osft-doc-1398/c25", "open-science-source-03/c139", "osft-doc-0951/c38", "open-science-source-41/c31", "osft-doc-0951/c37", "osft-doc-1327/c1060", "osft-doc-0932/c7", "open-science-source-03/c19", "open-science-source-03/c18", "osft-doc-1373/c397", "open-science-source-03/c4", "open-science-source-45/c165", "open-science-source-18/c519", "osft-doc-1327/c238", "osft-doc-1373/c452", "open-science-source-18/c521", "open-science-source-03/c3", "osft-doc-0441/c33", "osft-doc-1771/c28", "osft-doc-1646/c1", "osft-doc-1771/c61", "open-science-source-41/c379", "osft-doc-1737/c69", "open-science-source-45/c162", "osft-doc-1373/c450", "osft-doc-0900/c10", "open-science-source-37-c1/c209", "osft-doc-0645/c22", "osft-doc-0441/c334", "open-science-source-03/c2", "open-science-source-37-c1/c208", "osft-doc-0951/c26", "osft-doc-0142/c184", "osft-doc-1646/c15", "open-science-source-03/c5", "osft-doc-1737/c54", "open-science-source-37-c1/c205", "osft-doc-1373/c451", "osft-doc-0951/c31", "osft-doc-0152/c4", "open-science-source-37-c1/c206", "open-science-source-37-c1/c192", "open-science-source-37-c1/c207", "osft-doc-0105/c149", "osft-doc-1646/c56", "open-science-source-54-c2/c40", "open-science-source-26/c79", "osft-doc-1373/c269", "osft-doc-1373/c270" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 58, "claims": 152, "documents": 41 } }, { "id": "bu-015", "kind": "convergence", "name": "Scholarly literature can and should be made freely, immediately accessible at little or no cost", "definition": "Members hold that peer-reviewed articles, accepted manuscripts, and preprints should be openly accessible online without embargo, paywalls, or fees, and that this is practically achievable: self-archiving, institutional repositories, PubMed Central deposit, preprint posting, and diamond/green/gold OA routes let authors and readers get and give access at no or low cost. It covers both the normative demand for immediate, barrier-free access and the empirical/definitional claim that such access is economically feasible and already realized through specific no-fee mechanisms. It excludes claims about narrower downstream reuse rights (e.g., reference-list licensing, copyright-retention clauses) or the general benefits/degrees of access, which are not about the cost or immediacy of accessing the literature itself.", "coherence": "medium", "subpositions": [ { "statement": "Open access has recognized types (green, gold, diamond) with defining features.", "members": [ 1, 3, 7, 10, 13, 26, 29, 37, 38 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-36/c70", "osft-doc-1213/c4", "open-science-source-36/c26", "open-science-source-02/c344", "open-science-source-10/c14", "osft-doc-0504/c17", "open-science-source-15-c2/c40", "open-science-source-15-c2/c38", "osft-doc-1124/c3" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Journal literature should be freely, immediately accessible without embargo.", "members": [ 0, 2, 6, 9, 14, 20 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1124/c24", "open-science-source-24-c1/c45", "open-science-source-11/c3", "open-science-source-34/c30", "open-science-source-20/c11", "osft-doc-0504/c33" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "No-cost mechanisms (repositories, PMC, preprints, self-archiving) make open access affordable.", "members": [ 5, 8, 12, 15, 16, 17, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 30, 34, 35, 36, 39 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1459/c39", "osft-doc-1373/c487", "open-science-source-24-c5/c17", "open-science-source-24-c2/c6", "open-science-source-28/c30", "open-science-source-24-c2/c7", "osft-doc-0504/c10", "osft-doc-0504/c42", "open-science-source-22/c17", "osft-doc-0504/c23", "open-science-source-24-c6/c59", "osft-doc-0504/c43", "open-science-source-24-c3/c12", "open-science-source-19/c33", "osft-doc-1373/c364", "osft-doc-1673/c237", "osft-doc-0504/c26", "osft-doc-1124/c20" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Compliance and publishing should not require author fees or APCs.", "members": [ 19, 32, 33 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-15-c1/c65", "osft-doc-1373/c42", "open-science-source-24-c9/c81" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" } ], "outliers": [ { "rep": "osft-doc-0108/c40", "text": "Whether a journal is open-access or subscription-based, publishers should make reference lists in research articles available under the Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication.", "why": "About reuse rights for reference lists, not access to the literature itself" }, { "rep": "osft-doc-0108/c39", "text": "Whether a journal is open-access or subscription-based, publishers should remove all reuse limitations on reference lists in research articles.", "why": "About reuse limitations on reference lists, a different reuse topic" }, { "rep": "osft-doc-1124/c12", "text": "Open access gives readers extraordinary power to find and make use of relevant literature.", "why": "Describes reader benefits of OA rather than cost or availability" } ], "clusterStats": { "size": 40, "claims": 135, "documents": 43, "meanIntraCos": 0.848, "minIntraCos": 0.763 }, "starIds": [ "open-science-source-24-c1/c45", "open-science-source-24-c5/c17", "osft-doc-1124/c24", "open-science-source-11/c3", "open-science-source-15-c2/c40", "osft-doc-1213/c4", "open-science-source-20/c11", "open-science-source-24-c3/c12", "open-science-source-34/c30", "open-science-source-10/c14", "open-science-source-15-c2/c38", "open-science-source-24-c2/c6", "open-science-source-24-c2/c7", "open-science-source-28/c30", "open-science-source-24-c9/c81", "open-science-source-36/c70", "osft-doc-0504/c23", "osft-doc-1459/c39", "osft-doc-1673/c237", "osft-doc-0504/c33", "osft-doc-0504/c42", "osft-doc-1124/c12", "open-science-source-24-c6/c59", "open-science-source-36/c26", "osft-doc-1124/c3", "open-science-source-02/c344", "open-science-source-15-c1/c65", "open-science-source-19/c33", "open-science-source-22/c17", "osft-doc-0108/c39", "osft-doc-0108/c40", "osft-doc-0504/c10", "osft-doc-0504/c16", "osft-doc-0504/c17", "osft-doc-0504/c26", "osft-doc-0504/c43", "osft-doc-1124/c20", "osft-doc-1373/c364", "osft-doc-1373/c42", "osft-doc-1373/c487" ], "clusterMemberOrder": [ "osft-doc-1124/c24", "open-science-source-36/c70", "open-science-source-24-c1/c45", "osft-doc-1213/c4", "osft-doc-0504/c16", "osft-doc-1459/c39", "open-science-source-11/c3", "open-science-source-36/c26", "osft-doc-1373/c487", "open-science-source-34/c30", "open-science-source-02/c344", "osft-doc-0108/c40", "open-science-source-24-c5/c17", "open-science-source-10/c14", "open-science-source-20/c11", "open-science-source-24-c2/c6", "open-science-source-28/c30", "open-science-source-24-c2/c7", "osft-doc-0108/c39", "open-science-source-15-c1/c65", "osft-doc-0504/c33", "osft-doc-0504/c10", "osft-doc-0504/c42", "open-science-source-22/c17", "osft-doc-0504/c23", "open-science-source-24-c6/c59", "osft-doc-0504/c17", "osft-doc-0504/c43", "open-science-source-24-c3/c12", "open-science-source-15-c2/c40", "open-science-source-19/c33", "osft-doc-1124/c12", "osft-doc-1373/c42", "open-science-source-24-c9/c81", "osft-doc-1373/c364", "osft-doc-1673/c237", "osft-doc-0504/c26", "open-science-source-15-c2/c38", "osft-doc-1124/c3", "osft-doc-1124/c20" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 40, "claims": 135, "documents": 43 } }, { "id": "bu-016", "kind": "mixed", "name": "Research objects, metadata, and institutional processes should be open, transparent, and machine-actionable", "definition": "Members assert that research objects and their metadata should be Findable, Accessible, and Reusable by both machines and people, and that identifiers, licences, and metadata schemas should be structured so software can act on them without human mediation. A second recurring strand holds that institutions, funders, and infrastructure organisations should be explicit and transparent about their criteria, governance, finances, and operating procedures, within privacy limits. A third strand covers practical infrastructure-building advice (reusing existing tools, integrating rather than duplicating, mandating persistent identifiers) meant to make these principles workable. A new position belongs if it calls for openness, transparency, or machine-readability of research outputs, metadata, or organisational decision-making; it does NOT belong if it is a narrow factual or logistical claim about a single named initiative's timeline, funding source, or internal terminology (e.g., a specific workshop's scope or a project's completion date) without expressing a general FAIR/transparency principle.", "coherence": "low", "subpositions": [ { "statement": "Research objects should be Findable, Accessible, and Reusable for machines and people.", "members": [ 0, 1, 3, 2, 16, 21, 26 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0645/c47", "osft-doc-0645/c45", "osft-doc-0645/c44", "osft-doc-1373/c320", "osft-doc-1373/c492", "open-science-source-26/c133", "open-science-source-26/c122" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Institutions and funders should be transparent about governance and evaluation criteria.", "members": [ 7, 18, 19, 23, 24, 28, 30 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-09/c17", "osft-doc-0108/c31", "open-science-source-09/c8", "osft-doc-0633/c37", "osft-doc-0108/c27", "osft-doc-0142/c101", "osft-doc-0020/c21" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Mandating persistent identifiers and open metadata improves integrity and reduces ambiguity.", "members": [ 4, 13, 14 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0050/c56", "osft-doc-0050/c53", "osft-doc-0050/c54" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Open infrastructures should adapt and integrate existing tools rather than duplicate effort.", "members": [ 5, 8, 9, 15, 32 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-06/c184", "open-science-source-12/c217", "open-science-source-10/c196", "open-science-source-38/c249", "osft-doc-1373/c355" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Consensus-based frameworks used for FAIR could similarly accelerate CARE Principles implementation.", "members": [ 11, 25, 35 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-26/c125", "open-science-source-26/c33", "open-science-source-26/c34" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" } ], "outliers": [ { "rep": "open-science-source-20/c28", "text": "A government-wide open access policy will support informed, transparent, federal budget and policy decision-making.", "why": "narrow empirical claim about federal budget decision-making, not about FAIR/transparency principle" }, { "rep": "open-science-source-10/c50", "text": "Governments should build a shared evidence base to inform policy and demonstrate the societal value of open knowledge.", "why": "generic claim about evidence base for policy, no specific mechanism" }, { "rep": "osft-doc-1373/c636", "text": "Future communication efforts must focus on open practices as not being completely new, but simply more efficient and more rewarding versions of current practices.", "why": "about communication framing of open practices, unrelated to FAIR/transparency" }, { "rep": "osft-doc-1353/c104", "text": "The Equator Network aggregates reporting guidelines to improve discoverability.", "why": "single fact about one named guideline-aggregating network" }, { "rep": "open-science-source-24-c4/c5", "text": "NASA's plan should be updated to further clarify the compliance paths available to researchers and how they interact.", "why": "narrow claim about one agency's compliance plan" }, { "rep": "osft-doc-1507/c109", "text": "Metadata for Machines (M4M) Workshops constitute a community of practice that considers its domain-relevant metadata requirements and other policy considerations.", "why": "definitional statement about one workshop series" }, { "rep": "open-science-source-19/c62", "text": "A repository-based policy can be realized in a cost-effective manner.", "why": "cost claim about repository-based policy, tangential" }, { "rep": "osft-doc-1459/c145", "text": "Gaining support from SPARC for such developments would be useful.", "why": "one-off suggestion about seeking support from a named organisation" }, { "rep": "osft-doc-1507/c111", "text": "The FAIR Implementation Profile (FIP) comprises re-usable metadata schemata produced in the M4M workshop.", "why": "definitional statement about a specific named artifact (FIP)" }, { "rep": "osft-doc-0441/c224", "text": "Small-time commitments made by the community can yield meaningful improvements in organizing current resources on open-scholarship education.", "why": "claim about open-scholarship education resourcing, unrelated theme" } ], "clusterStats": { "size": 36, "claims": 87, "documents": 43, "meanIntraCos": 0.808, "minIntraCos": 0.748 }, "starIds": [ "open-science-source-09/c8", "osft-doc-0108/c31", "osft-doc-0645/c44", "osft-doc-0645/c45", "osft-doc-0020/c21", "osft-doc-0645/c47", "osft-doc-1353/c104", "open-science-source-20/c28", "osft-doc-0050/c169", "open-science-source-09/c17", "osft-doc-0108/c27", "open-science-source-06/c184", "open-science-source-10/c196", "open-science-source-10/c50", "open-science-source-12/c217", "open-science-source-19/c62", "open-science-source-24-c4/c5", "open-science-source-26/c122", "open-science-source-26/c125", "open-science-source-26/c133", "open-science-source-26/c33", "open-science-source-26/c34", "open-science-source-38/c249", "osft-doc-0050/c53", "osft-doc-0050/c54", "osft-doc-0050/c56", "osft-doc-0142/c101", "osft-doc-0441/c224", "osft-doc-1373/c320", "osft-doc-1373/c355", "osft-doc-1373/c492", "osft-doc-1373/c636", "osft-doc-1459/c145", "osft-doc-1507/c109", "osft-doc-1507/c111", "osft-doc-0633/c37" ], "clusterMemberOrder": [ "osft-doc-0645/c47", "osft-doc-0645/c45", "osft-doc-1373/c320", "osft-doc-0645/c44", "osft-doc-0050/c56", "open-science-source-06/c184", "open-science-source-20/c28", "open-science-source-09/c17", "open-science-source-12/c217", "open-science-source-10/c196", "open-science-source-10/c50", "open-science-source-26/c125", "osft-doc-1373/c636", "osft-doc-0050/c53", "osft-doc-0050/c54", "open-science-source-38/c249", "osft-doc-1373/c492", "osft-doc-1353/c104", "osft-doc-0108/c31", "open-science-source-09/c8", "osft-doc-0050/c169", "open-science-source-26/c133", "open-science-source-24-c4/c5", "osft-doc-0633/c37", "osft-doc-0108/c27", "open-science-source-26/c33", "open-science-source-26/c122", "osft-doc-1507/c109", "osft-doc-0142/c101", "open-science-source-19/c62", "osft-doc-0020/c21", "osft-doc-1459/c145", "osft-doc-1373/c355", "osft-doc-1507/c111", "osft-doc-0441/c224", "open-science-source-26/c34" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 36, "claims": 87, "documents": 43 } }, { "id": "bu-017", "kind": "convergence", "name": "Scholarly communication and open science are rapidly evolving, driven by new digital technologies and growing metrics", "definition": "Members assert that the landscape of scholarly communication and open science is dynamic and rapidly changing, driven by digital and Web/semantic-web technologies, and that this change is visible in the proliferation of preprints, OA journals, repositories, journal business models, and quantitative or alternative metrics (altmetrics) for tracking research impact. Several members are normative claims that new technologies and open indicators should be embraced or implemented to support this evolution. A new position belongs here if it describes the scholarly/research ecosystem as growing, diversifying, or technologically transforming, or calls for adopting such technologies/metrics; it does NOT belong if it makes a specific policy prescription unrelated to describing this general evolution (e.g., what a communication system should do about research gaps) or a generic, non-evolutionary claim about research practice.", "coherence": "medium", "subpositions": [ { "statement": "The scholarly communication and open science landscape is rapidly changing and evolving.", "members": [ 0, 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 15, 16, 25, 30, 31, 36, 37, 46, 48, 51, 54, 56 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1869/c72", "open-science-source-04/c137", "open-science-source-02/c9", "osft-doc-0142/c418", "open-science-source-06/c266", "osft-doc-1373/c585", "osft-doc-0441/c245", "osft-doc-0441/c218", "osft-doc-0152/c7", "open-science-source-06/c3", "osft-doc-1869/c1", "osft-doc-1737/c60", "osft-doc-0441/c228", "osft-doc-1373/c241", "osft-doc-1327/c557", "open-science-source-04/c33", "osft-doc-1673/c284", "open-science-source-03/c7", "osft-doc-1373/c590", "open-science-source-03/c6", "osft-doc-0446/c1" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "New digital, Web 2.0, and semantic-web technologies should be adopted for collaboration and discovery.", "members": [ 10, 14, 19, 21, 33, 39, 42, 43, 50, 57 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-04/c135", "osft-doc-1373/c163", "open-science-source-27/c1", "osft-doc-1373/c239", "osft-doc-1373/c359", "osft-doc-1373/c240", "osft-doc-1373/c116", "osft-doc-1373/c356", "osft-doc-1373/c390", "osft-doc-1373/c351" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Metrics and altmetrics are proliferating, capturing new, non-traditional forms of research impact.", "members": [ 2, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, 28, 29, 32, 38, 40, 47, 55 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0142/c1195", "osft-doc-0108/c25", "osft-doc-1459/c443", "open-science-source-06/c156", "osft-doc-1373/c271", "osft-doc-1047/c2", "osft-doc-0108/c24", "osft-doc-1373/c412", "osft-doc-0142/c17", "open-science-source-45/c221", "osft-doc-1373/c415", "osft-doc-1373/c416", "osft-doc-0142/c214" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Specific outputs and infrastructures—OA journals, preprints, repositories, journal models—have proliferated and grown.", "members": [ 8, 12, 13, 24, 26, 27, 34, 35, 41, 45, 49, 53, 58 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-02/c10", "open-science-source-04/c31", "osft-doc-0142/c890", "open-science-source-02/c14", "open-science-source-02/c4", "osft-doc-1373/c471", "osft-doc-0836/c9", "osft-doc-0050/c122", "open-science-source-02/c12", "open-science-source-22/c32", "open-science-source-02/c6", "osft-doc-0645/c30", "osft-doc-1373/c386" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" } ], "outliers": [ { "rep": "open-science-source-04/c129", "text": "A system of scholarly communication should identify research gaps.", "why": "Normative claim about identifying research gaps, unrelated to describing technological/metric evolution." }, { "rep": "osft-doc-0108/c22", "text": "The opportunities provided by online publication, such as relaxing unnecessary limits on the number of words, figures, and references in articles and exploring new indicators of significance and impact, must be capitalized on.", "why": "Specific editorial-policy prescription (word/figure limits) only loosely tied to the general evolution theme." } ], "clusterStats": { "size": 59, "claims": 147, "documents": 41, "meanIntraCos": 0.83, "minIntraCos": 0.762 }, "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1737/c60", "open-science-source-06/c266", "osft-doc-1373/c585", "open-science-source-02/c6", "osft-doc-1373/c412", "open-science-source-04/c135", "osft-doc-0441/c218", "open-science-source-04/c137", "open-science-source-06/c3", "open-science-source-27/c1", "osft-doc-0050/c122", "osft-doc-0152/c7", "osft-doc-0441/c245", "osft-doc-1373/c116", "osft-doc-1673/c284", "osft-doc-1869/c1", "osft-doc-1459/c443", "osft-doc-1373/c163", "osft-doc-1869/c72", "osft-doc-1327/c557", "osft-doc-0446/c1", "osft-doc-0142/c1195", "osft-doc-0142/c418", "osft-doc-1047/c2", "osft-doc-1373/c239", "open-science-source-02/c10", "open-science-source-02/c12", "open-science-source-02/c14", "open-science-source-02/c4", "open-science-source-02/c9", "open-science-source-03/c6", "open-science-source-03/c7", "open-science-source-04/c129", "open-science-source-04/c31", "open-science-source-04/c33", "open-science-source-06/c156", "open-science-source-22/c32", "open-science-source-45/c221", "osft-doc-0108/c22", "osft-doc-0108/c24", "osft-doc-0108/c25", "osft-doc-0142/c17", "osft-doc-0142/c214", "osft-doc-0142/c890", "osft-doc-0441/c228", "osft-doc-0645/c30", "osft-doc-0836/c9", "osft-doc-1373/c240", "osft-doc-1373/c241", "osft-doc-1373/c271", "osft-doc-1373/c351", "osft-doc-1373/c356", "osft-doc-1373/c359", "osft-doc-1373/c386", "osft-doc-1373/c390", "osft-doc-1373/c415", "osft-doc-1373/c416", "osft-doc-1373/c471", "osft-doc-1373/c590" ], "clusterMemberOrder": [ "osft-doc-1869/c72", "open-science-source-04/c137", "osft-doc-0142/c1195", "open-science-source-02/c9", "osft-doc-0142/c418", "open-science-source-06/c266", "osft-doc-1373/c585", "osft-doc-0441/c245", "open-science-source-02/c10", "osft-doc-0441/c218", "open-science-source-04/c135", "osft-doc-0152/c7", "open-science-source-04/c31", "osft-doc-0142/c890", "osft-doc-1373/c163", "open-science-source-06/c3", "osft-doc-1869/c1", "osft-doc-0108/c25", "osft-doc-1459/c443", "open-science-source-27/c1", "open-science-source-06/c156", "osft-doc-1373/c239", "osft-doc-1373/c271", "osft-doc-1047/c2", "open-science-source-02/c14", "osft-doc-1737/c60", "open-science-source-02/c4", "osft-doc-1373/c471", "osft-doc-0108/c24", "osft-doc-1373/c412", "osft-doc-0441/c228", "osft-doc-1373/c241", "osft-doc-0142/c17", "osft-doc-1373/c359", "osft-doc-0836/c9", "osft-doc-0050/c122", "osft-doc-1327/c557", "open-science-source-04/c33", "open-science-source-45/c221", "osft-doc-1373/c240", "osft-doc-1373/c415", "open-science-source-02/c12", "osft-doc-1373/c116", "osft-doc-1373/c356", "osft-doc-0108/c22", "open-science-source-22/c32", "osft-doc-1673/c284", "osft-doc-1373/c416", "open-science-source-03/c7", "open-science-source-02/c6", "osft-doc-1373/c390", "osft-doc-1373/c590", "open-science-source-04/c129", "osft-doc-0645/c30", "open-science-source-03/c6", "osft-doc-0142/c214", "osft-doc-0446/c1", "osft-doc-1373/c351", "osft-doc-1373/c386" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 59, "claims": 147, "documents": 41 } }, { "id": "bu-018", "kind": "mixed", "name": "Open science faces persistent barriers, unresolved disagreements, and evidence gaps on many fronts.", "definition": "Members catalogue a wide range of distinct obstacles to open science: lack of consensus on goals, definitions, or strategy; structural, cultural, and cost barriers to adopting open practices; limited evidence on what reproducibility interventions or training actually work; outdated or underdeveloped assessment and impact metrics; and uneven access to or benefit from openness across researchers, institutions, and countries. A position belongs here if it names a specific difficulty, disagreement, or unknown that impedes open science, without proposing a solution or taking a normative stance on what should be done. It does NOT belong here if it argues for a particular policy, mechanism, or reform (e.g., 'funders should mandate data sharing') rather than simply describing a tension or gap.", "coherence": "low", "subpositions": [ { "statement": "No consensus exists on the best path or priorities for open scholarship.", "members": [ 1, 2, 6, 10, 13, 14, 15, 17, 22, 28, 32, 45 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1373/c258", "osft-doc-1373/c283", "osft-doc-1373/c288", "osft-doc-1673/c131", "osft-doc-1327/c436", "osft-doc-1459/c314", "open-science-source-04/c12", "osft-doc-1373/c495", "osft-doc-1373/c289", "open-science-source-38/c278", "osft-doc-1373/c519", "osft-doc-1373/c555" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Structural, cultural, and cost barriers hinder adoption of open practices.", "members": [ 7, 8, 9, 25, 37, 46, 53 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-12/c76", "open-science-source-42/c526", "osft-doc-1869/c228", "open-science-source-42/c50", "open-science-source-24-c7/c20", "open-science-source-24-c5/c35", "osft-doc-0836/c67" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Evidence on reproducibility interventions and training effectiveness remains limited.", "members": [ 4, 12, 26, 30, 34, 39 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0050/c152", "osft-doc-0441/c261", "osft-doc-0150/c125", "osft-doc-0050/c137", "osft-doc-0050/c135", "osft-doc-0150/c128" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Assessment and impact metrics have not kept pace with open science.", "members": [ 5, 20, 33, 41, 44, 51, 52 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-38/c80", "open-science-source-45/c214", "osft-doc-1047/c26", "open-science-source-06/c267", "osft-doc-0142/c1225", "osft-doc-1327/c687", "open-science-source-55/c30" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Openness and its benefits are unevenly available across researchers and institutions.", "members": [ 19, 24, 27, 38 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1327/c632", "osft-doc-1327/c618", "osft-doc-1327/c1155", "osft-doc-1373/c576" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" } ], "outliers": [ { "rep": "osft-doc-0825/c62", "text": "The challenges of achieving open science are immense, but the collective will and potential to overcome them are equally great.", "why": "Optimistic framing (collective will can overcome challenges) rather than describing a barrier." }, { "rep": "osft-doc-0836/c92", "text": "Google Scholar's revenue model and sustainability are opaque.", "why": "Narrow factual claim about one platform's opacity, not a general open-science challenge." }, { "rep": "open-science-source-42/c545", "text": "Secretive practices, such as closed data and models, in the AI conference publication model conflict with open science principles.", "why": "Specific critique of AI conference norms rather than a general tension or gap." }, { "rep": "osft-doc-1373/c545", "text": "Underestimating the power of copyright laws and their intersection with various aspects of Open Scholarship may have been one of the key reasons the Open movement has not met some of its principal objectives.", "why": "Causal historical claim about copyright's role, distinct from listing ongoing barriers." }, { "rep": "osft-doc-1373/c319", "text": "The increasing private sector funding of research is a difficult aspect to reconcile with the view that publicly funded research should be accessible to the public.", "why": "Specific tension between private funding and public access, narrower than the cluster's general theme." } ], "clusterStats": { "size": 54, "claims": 145, "documents": 41, "meanIntraCos": 0.828, "minIntraCos": 0.758 }, "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1327/c632", "osft-doc-0142/c1225", "osft-doc-0152/c5", "osft-doc-1449/c469", "osft-doc-0836/c67", "open-science-source-38/c278", "open-science-source-45/c214", "osft-doc-1673/c131", "open-science-source-06/c267", "open-science-source-33/c11", "open-science-source-42/c545", "osft-doc-0825/c62", "osft-doc-1327/c436", "osft-doc-1327/c618", "osft-doc-1373/c283", "osft-doc-1373/c288", "osft-doc-1373/c319", "osft-doc-1373/c605", "osft-doc-1449/c335", "osft-doc-1459/c314", "osft-doc-1047/c26", "open-science-source-55/c30", "osft-doc-0150/c128", "open-science-source-04/c12", "open-science-source-12/c76", "osft-doc-1373/c258", "osft-doc-1373/c537", "osft-doc-0150/c125", "osft-doc-1869/c228", "open-science-source-05/c89", "open-science-source-24-c5/c35", "open-science-source-24-c7/c20", "open-science-source-36/c146", "open-science-source-38/c80", "open-science-source-42/c526", "osft-doc-0050/c118", "osft-doc-0050/c135", "osft-doc-0050/c137", "osft-doc-0050/c152", "osft-doc-0050/c173", "osft-doc-0441/c261", "osft-doc-0836/c92", "osft-doc-1327/c1155", "osft-doc-1327/c687", "osft-doc-1373/c289", "osft-doc-1373/c495", "osft-doc-1373/c507", "osft-doc-1373/c519", "osft-doc-1373/c545", "osft-doc-1373/c555", "osft-doc-1373/c576", "osft-doc-1373/c598", "osft-doc-1507/c144", "open-science-source-42/c50" ], "clusterMemberOrder": [ "osft-doc-1449/c469", "osft-doc-1373/c258", "osft-doc-1373/c283", "osft-doc-0152/c5", "osft-doc-0050/c152", "open-science-source-38/c80", "osft-doc-1373/c288", "open-science-source-12/c76", "open-science-source-42/c526", "osft-doc-1869/c228", "osft-doc-1673/c131", "osft-doc-1507/c144", "osft-doc-0441/c261", "osft-doc-1327/c436", "osft-doc-1459/c314", "open-science-source-04/c12", "osft-doc-1373/c319", "osft-doc-1373/c495", "open-science-source-33/c11", "osft-doc-1327/c632", "open-science-source-45/c214", "open-science-source-36/c146", "osft-doc-1373/c289", "osft-doc-1373/c605", "osft-doc-1327/c618", "open-science-source-42/c50", "osft-doc-0150/c125", "osft-doc-1327/c1155", "open-science-source-38/c278", "osft-doc-1373/c537", "osft-doc-0050/c137", "osft-doc-1449/c335", "osft-doc-1373/c519", "osft-doc-1047/c26", "osft-doc-0050/c135", "osft-doc-1373/c598", "osft-doc-0050/c118", "open-science-source-24-c7/c20", "osft-doc-1373/c576", "osft-doc-0150/c128", "osft-doc-1373/c507", "open-science-source-06/c267", "osft-doc-1373/c545", "open-science-source-42/c545", "osft-doc-0142/c1225", "osft-doc-1373/c555", "open-science-source-24-c5/c35", "open-science-source-05/c89", "osft-doc-0825/c62", "osft-doc-0050/c173", "osft-doc-0836/c92", "osft-doc-1327/c687", "open-science-source-55/c30", "osft-doc-0836/c67" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 54, "claims": 145, "documents": 41 } }, { "id": "bu-019", "kind": "mixed", "name": "Scholarly publishing should be reformed toward transparency, fairness, and openness", "definition": "Members call for publishers, journals, and institutions to reform multiple distinct aspects of scholarly publishing: financial and review-process transparency, fair and nonprofit-oriented pricing/ownership models, adoption and support of preprints, FAIR-compliant handling of data and research objects, and open access to legacy publications via repositories. A new position belongs here if it prescribes a specific reform to how publishers, journals, or institutions operate (pricing, review, preprints, data practices, legacy access, core publishing values like validation/registration/certification). It would NOT belong if it only describes researcher behavior unrelated to publisher/institutional practice (e.g., general career pressure) or states a neutral definition without a normative or reform claim.", "coherence": "low", "subpositions": [ { "statement": "Publishers should be transparent about financial models and review processes.", "members": [ 0, 1, 3, 7, 8, 15, 21, 24, 28, 31, 33, 36, 38, 39 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0825/c59", "osft-doc-0150/c116", "osft-doc-0825/c56", "osft-doc-1373/c93", "osft-doc-0050/c143", "osft-doc-0900/c23", "open-science-source-15-c1/c7", "osft-doc-1373/c91", "osft-doc-1373/c194", "osft-doc-0900/c24", "open-science-source-15-c1/c50", "open-science-source-15-c1/c60", "osft-doc-1459/c131", "open-science-source-15-c1/c61" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Preprints should be encouraged, supported, and made more discoverable.", "members": [ 6, 13, 17, 20, 42, 43, 46 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1373/c144", "osft-doc-1327/c128", "osft-doc-1373/c299", "osft-doc-1327/c777", "osft-doc-1373/c627", "open-science-source-22/c31", "osft-doc-1373/c626" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Publishing and data practices should follow FAIR principles.", "members": [ 11, 19, 23, 27 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1459/c353", "osft-doc-0645/c125", "osft-doc-0298/c11", "osft-doc-1459/c72" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Pricing and ownership of publishing should be fair and nonprofit-controlled.", "members": [ 16, 18, 22, 25, 32, 33 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-15-c1/c51", "open-science-source-02/c277", "open-science-source-03/c151", "open-science-source-15-c1/c4", "osft-doc-1373/c142", "open-science-source-15-c1/c50" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Legacy publications should be made openly accessible through repositories.", "members": [ 26, 30, 34, 35, 37 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1373/c173", "osft-doc-1373/c174", "osft-doc-1373/c83", "osft-doc-1373/c84", "osft-doc-1646/c33" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Publishers should preserve core scholarly values and responsible authorship.", "members": [ 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 14, 29 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0108/c37", "osft-doc-0825/c52", "osft-doc-0825/c54", "osft-doc-0825/c53", "osft-doc-0825/c51", "osft-doc-0108/c38", "osft-doc-1373/c55" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" } ], "outliers": [ { "rep": "open-science-source-45/c106", "text": "Pressure to publish has increased.", "why": "describes researcher career pressure, not a publisher/institutional reform" }, { "rep": "open-science-source-36/c190", "text": "Some researchers find paper mills attractive because they face pressure to publish a high quantity of scholarly publications to advance in their careers.", "why": "explains why researchers use paper mills, not a publishing reform claim" }, { "rep": "open-science-source-45/c117", "text": "The pressure to publish is not a new phenomenon.", "why": "purely historical/empirical claim about publish pressure, no reform" }, { "rep": "open-science-source-28/c1", "text": "A preprint is a version of a manuscript hosted on a public server prior to formal peer review.", "why": "neutral definition of preprint, asserts no normative position" }, { "rep": "open-science-source-16-c1/c97", "text": "An increasing number of scientific journals require wwPDB validation reports to be included at the time of manuscript submission.", "why": "narrow empirical fact about a specific validation report requirement" } ], "clusterStats": { "size": 48, "claims": 121, "documents": 36, "meanIntraCos": 0.828, "minIntraCos": 0.751 }, "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1327/c128", "open-science-source-02/c277", "osft-doc-0825/c56", "osft-doc-0108/c37", "open-science-source-15-c1/c51", "open-science-source-15-c1/c60", "osft-doc-0108/c38", "osft-doc-0825/c54", "osft-doc-1327/c777", "osft-doc-1373/c142", "osft-doc-1373/c144", "osft-doc-1373/c173", "osft-doc-1373/c299", "osft-doc-1373/c626", "osft-doc-1373/c83", "osft-doc-1373/c84", "osft-doc-1459/c353", "osft-doc-1646/c33", "osft-doc-1373/c93", "osft-doc-0150/c116", "osft-doc-0645/c125", "open-science-source-15-c1/c7", "osft-doc-0900/c24", "osft-doc-1373/c627", "osft-doc-0900/c23", "open-science-source-03/c151", "open-science-source-15-c1/c4", "open-science-source-15-c1/c50", "open-science-source-15-c1/c61", "open-science-source-16-c1/c97", "open-science-source-22/c31", "open-science-source-28/c1", "open-science-source-36/c190", "open-science-source-45/c106", "open-science-source-45/c117", "osft-doc-0050/c143", "osft-doc-0298/c11", "osft-doc-0298/c13", "osft-doc-0825/c51", "osft-doc-0825/c52", "osft-doc-0825/c53", "osft-doc-0825/c59", "osft-doc-1373/c174", "osft-doc-1373/c194", "osft-doc-1373/c55", "osft-doc-1373/c91", "osft-doc-1459/c131", "osft-doc-1459/c72" ], "clusterMemberOrder": [ "osft-doc-0825/c59", "osft-doc-0150/c116", "osft-doc-0108/c37", "osft-doc-0825/c56", "osft-doc-0825/c52", "osft-doc-0825/c54", "osft-doc-1373/c144", "osft-doc-1373/c93", "osft-doc-0050/c143", "osft-doc-0825/c53", "osft-doc-0825/c51", "osft-doc-1459/c353", "osft-doc-0298/c13", "osft-doc-1327/c128", "osft-doc-0108/c38", "osft-doc-0900/c23", "open-science-source-15-c1/c51", "osft-doc-1373/c299", "open-science-source-02/c277", "osft-doc-0645/c125", "osft-doc-1327/c777", "open-science-source-15-c1/c7", "open-science-source-03/c151", "osft-doc-0298/c11", "osft-doc-1373/c91", "open-science-source-15-c1/c4", "osft-doc-1373/c173", "osft-doc-1459/c72", "osft-doc-1373/c194", "osft-doc-1373/c55", "osft-doc-1373/c174", "osft-doc-0900/c24", "osft-doc-1373/c142", "open-science-source-15-c1/c50", "osft-doc-1373/c83", "osft-doc-1373/c84", "open-science-source-15-c1/c60", "osft-doc-1646/c33", "osft-doc-1459/c131", "open-science-source-15-c1/c61", "open-science-source-16-c1/c97", "open-science-source-45/c106", "osft-doc-1373/c627", "open-science-source-22/c31", "open-science-source-36/c190", "open-science-source-45/c117", "osft-doc-1373/c626", "open-science-source-28/c1" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 48, "claims": 121, "documents": 36 } }, { "id": "bu-020", "kind": "mixed", "name": "Research outputs need standardized, machine-readable metadata and documentation to enable findability and responsible reuse", "definition": "Members hold that publications, datasets, and software should be accompanied by rich, standardized, machine-readable metadata (interoperable formats, community standards, persistent identifiers, provenance) so they can be found, cited, and reused. This includes concrete documentation mechanisms: data availability statements and Traditional Knowledge (TK) Labels that assert Indigenous authority over cultural data. It does NOT include positions about who funds open access, licensing terms for reuse rights, embargo periods, or repository infrastructure/preservation policy as such — the common thread here is specifically the *description/documentation* of an object (what it is, where it came from, how it may be used), not the legal or economic conditions of access.", "coherence": "medium", "subpositions": [ { "statement": "Metadata should be standardized, interoperable, machine-readable, and non-proprietary.", "members": [ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0645/c94", "open-science-source-15-c1/c73", "open-science-source-24-c9/c68", "open-science-source-24-c6/c16", "osft-doc-0050/c52", "osft-doc-0645/c87", "osft-doc-0645/c98", "osft-doc-0298/c21", "open-science-source-15-c1/c71", "open-science-source-12/c150", "open-science-source-15-c1/c76", "osft-doc-0731/c2", "open-science-source-54-c2/c147", "open-science-source-15-c1/c77" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Publications and datasets should include a data availability statement citing data.", "members": [ 11, 12, 18, 19 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-28/c10", "open-science-source-28/c20", "osft-doc-0963/c17", "osft-doc-0963/c27" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "TK Labels assert Indigenous authority, provenance, and governance over cultural data.", "members": [ 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-26/c69", "open-science-source-26/c64", "open-science-source-26/c62", "osft-doc-1027/c74", "open-science-source-26/c63", "open-science-source-26/c61" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" } ], "outliers": [ { "rep": "osft-doc-0441/c221", "text": "Contributors should label resources according to their type, educational level, language, conditions of use, subject area, and primary user, and add useful tags.", "why": "About labeling educational resources by type/audience, not machine-readable metadata standards" } ], "clusterStats": { "size": 26, "claims": 69, "documents": 33, "meanIntraCos": 0.831, "minIntraCos": 0.762 }, "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0645/c98", "open-science-source-15-c1/c76", "open-science-source-24-c9/c68", "open-science-source-15-c1/c71", "osft-doc-0963/c17", "osft-doc-1197/c20", "osft-doc-0050/c52", "open-science-source-26/c61", "osft-doc-0731/c2", "osft-doc-1027/c74", "open-science-source-12/c150", "osft-doc-0298/c21", "osft-doc-0645/c87", "open-science-source-15-c1/c73", "osft-doc-0963/c27", "open-science-source-15-c1/c77", "open-science-source-24-c6/c16", "open-science-source-26/c62", "open-science-source-26/c63", "open-science-source-26/c64", "open-science-source-26/c69", "open-science-source-28/c20", "open-science-source-54-c2/c147", "osft-doc-0441/c221", "osft-doc-0645/c94", "open-science-source-28/c10" ], "clusterMemberOrder": [ "osft-doc-0645/c94", "open-science-source-15-c1/c73", "open-science-source-24-c9/c68", "open-science-source-24-c6/c16", "osft-doc-0050/c52", "osft-doc-1197/c20", "osft-doc-0645/c87", "osft-doc-0645/c98", "osft-doc-0298/c21", "open-science-source-15-c1/c71", "open-science-source-12/c150", "open-science-source-28/c10", "open-science-source-28/c20", "open-science-source-15-c1/c76", "osft-doc-0731/c2", "osft-doc-0441/c221", "open-science-source-54-c2/c147", "open-science-source-15-c1/c77", "osft-doc-0963/c17", "osft-doc-0963/c27", "open-science-source-26/c69", "open-science-source-26/c64", "open-science-source-26/c62", "osft-doc-1027/c74", "open-science-source-26/c63", "open-science-source-26/c61" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 26, "claims": 69, "documents": 33 } }, { "id": "bu-021", "kind": "mixed", "name": "The current scholarly system's incentives, culture, and infrastructure impede open science.", "definition": "Members describe structural barriers baked into today's research and publishing system: reward structures that prize novel results, publication quantity, and high-impact-journal placement over accuracy, quality, or open practices; a competitive, individualistic research culture that conflicts with collaborative/commons ideals; growing reliance on closed, proprietary, or commercial infrastructures and business models that restrict access to research information and lock in knowledge; and time/administrative burdens (teaching, funding, admin) that leave researchers little room to adopt or teach open practices. A new position belongs here if it identifies a systemic feature of the existing research/publishing ecosystem (incentives, culture, infrastructure ownership, formats, or workload) as an obstacle to open scholarship. It does NOT belong if it instead proposes a specific reform or policy solution, describes a benefit of openness rather than a barrier, or makes a claim unrelated to systemic constraints (e.g., about student career paths or communication style).", "coherence": "medium", "subpositions": [ { "statement": "Reward systems favor novel, high-impact publications over quality or openness.", "members": [ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 13, 14 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1459/c664", "osft-doc-0441/c168", "osft-doc-0138/c1", "osft-doc-1373/c566", "osft-doc-0138/c2", "osft-doc-0441/c36", "osft-doc-0441/c35", "osft-doc-1878/c147", "osft-doc-1459/c589" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Competitive academic culture conflicts with collaborative, commons-based research ideals.", "members": [ 10, 15, 16, 19, 23, 24 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0152/c6", "open-science-source-18/c531", "osft-doc-0138/c9", "osft-doc-0441/c157", "osft-doc-0441/c155", "osft-doc-1373/c628" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Research information and infrastructure are increasingly locked into closed, proprietary systems.", "members": [ 11, 12, 17, 20, 21, 28, 30, 32, 33, 36, 39 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-05/c6", "osft-doc-0114/c8", "open-science-source-06/c69", "open-science-source-05/c20", "open-science-source-38/c5", "osft-doc-0836/c3", "osft-doc-0730/c22", "open-science-source-05/c8", "open-science-source-02/c59", "osft-doc-0114/c9", "osft-doc-0836/c4" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Existing publishing formats, technologies, and business models are outdated for current needs.", "members": [ 18, 29, 34, 35, 37 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1459/c392", "open-science-source-04/c139", "open-science-source-06/c94", "osft-doc-1373/c237", "open-science-source-06/c91" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Time, teaching, and administrative burdens hinder adoption of open scholarship.", "members": [ 5, 8, 9, 25, 26, 27, 31, 38 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0441/c169", "osft-doc-0441/c160", "osft-doc-0441/c159", "open-science-source-45/c112", "osft-doc-1878/c160", "osft-doc-0441/c163", "open-science-source-24-c1/c36", "osft-doc-0441/c170" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" } ], "outliers": [ { "rep": "osft-doc-0441/c91", "text": "The majority of higher education students will not pursue an academic career.", "why": "About student career outcomes, not a systemic barrier to open scholarship" }, { "rep": "open-science-source-04/c26", "text": "Research output is often communicated in a highly abstract domain-specific language, preventing knowledge dissemination to other research fields and to other members of society.", "why": "About communication clarity/jargon rather than incentive, culture, or infrastructure barriers" } ], "clusterStats": { "size": 41, "claims": 114, "documents": 35, "meanIntraCos": 0.815, "minIntraCos": 0.745 }, "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1459/c589", "osft-doc-0441/c168", "open-science-source-24-c1/c36", "open-science-source-18/c531", "open-science-source-45/c112", "osft-doc-1373/c237", "osft-doc-0138/c9", "osft-doc-1373/c566", "osft-doc-0138/c2", "osft-doc-0152/c6", "osft-doc-1373/c628", "open-science-source-05/c6", "osft-doc-1459/c664", "open-science-source-04/c139", "osft-doc-0441/c169", "osft-doc-0441/c36", "osft-doc-0138/c1", "osft-doc-0441/c159", "open-science-source-06/c91", "osft-doc-1459/c392", "osft-doc-1878/c147", "osft-doc-0441/c160", "open-science-source-02/c59", "open-science-source-04/c26", "open-science-source-05/c20", "open-science-source-05/c8", "open-science-source-06/c69", "open-science-source-06/c94", "open-science-source-38/c5", "osft-doc-0114/c8", "osft-doc-0114/c9", "osft-doc-0441/c155", "osft-doc-0441/c157", "osft-doc-0441/c163", "osft-doc-0441/c170", "osft-doc-0441/c35", "osft-doc-0441/c91", "osft-doc-0730/c22", "osft-doc-0836/c3", "osft-doc-0836/c4", "osft-doc-1878/c160" ], "clusterMemberOrder": [ "osft-doc-1459/c664", "osft-doc-0441/c168", "osft-doc-0138/c1", "osft-doc-1373/c566", "osft-doc-0138/c2", "osft-doc-0441/c169", "osft-doc-0441/c36", "osft-doc-0441/c35", "osft-doc-0441/c160", "osft-doc-0441/c159", "osft-doc-0152/c6", "open-science-source-05/c6", "osft-doc-0114/c8", "osft-doc-1878/c147", "osft-doc-1459/c589", "open-science-source-18/c531", "osft-doc-0138/c9", "open-science-source-06/c69", "osft-doc-1459/c392", "osft-doc-0441/c157", "open-science-source-05/c20", "open-science-source-38/c5", "open-science-source-04/c26", "osft-doc-0441/c155", "osft-doc-1373/c628", "open-science-source-45/c112", "osft-doc-1878/c160", "osft-doc-0441/c163", "osft-doc-0836/c3", "open-science-source-04/c139", "osft-doc-0730/c22", "open-science-source-24-c1/c36", "open-science-source-05/c8", "open-science-source-02/c59", "open-science-source-06/c94", "osft-doc-1373/c237", "osft-doc-0114/c9", "open-science-source-06/c91", "osft-doc-0441/c170", "osft-doc-0836/c4", "osft-doc-0441/c91" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 41, "claims": 114, "documents": 35 } }, { "id": "bu-022", "kind": "mixed", "name": "Open scholarship should embrace diversity, collaborate broadly, and keep governance open to all stakeholders", "definition": "Members assert that open science/scholarship should value diverse knowledge systems, cultures, and ideological perspectives; that stakeholders across the scholarly communication community should work together, find common ground, and coordinate strategies rather than work at cross-purposes; and that infrastructure organisations and governance bodies should be open to any interested stakeholder group, with boards reflecting the demographics and interests of the membership. A new position belongs here if it calls for inclusion of varied knowledge-holders or perspectives, for collective/coordinated action among open-science actors, or for open, representative, non-discriminatory participation in governance or membership. It would NOT belong if it instead specifies a concrete funding, licensing, publishing, or infrastructure mechanism (e.g. who pays for APCs, which metadata standard to use) without reference to diversity, collaboration, or open governance.", "coherence": "medium", "subpositions": [ { "statement": "Open science should value and benefit from diverse knowledge systems and cultures.", "members": [ 0, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 11, 20, 22 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1327/c335", "osft-doc-1327/c16", "osft-doc-1327/c818", "open-science-source-03/c47", "osft-doc-1737/c10", "open-science-source-03/c45", "open-science-source-27/c13", "open-science-source-54-c2/c134", "osft-doc-1373/c439" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Stakeholders should collaborate and find common ground to avoid working at cross-purposes.", "members": [ 4, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 24 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-15-c2/c21", "osft-doc-1327/c727", "osft-doc-1327/c457", "osft-doc-1327/c794", "osft-doc-1673/c165", "osft-doc-0645/c116", "osft-doc-1673/c132", "osft-doc-1373/c310", "osft-doc-1193/c72", "osft-doc-1373/c496", "osft-doc-1373/c520" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Governance and membership of open-scholarship organisations should be open to all stakeholder groups.", "members": [ 12, 19, 21, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0777/c11", "osft-doc-0860/c4", "osft-doc-1287/c30", "open-science-source-09/c3", "osft-doc-0756/c4", "open-science-source-09/c5", "osft-doc-0020/c12", "osft-doc-0756/c8" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" } ], "outliers": [ { "rep": "osft-doc-1373/c538", "text": "The Open Scholarship community should adopt the stance of 'radical kindness' when engaging with powerful players with opposing or divergent interests, treating them with absolute, unwavering civility even when such courtesies are not repaid.", "why": "Advocates a specific tone of civility toward opponents, not diversity, collaboration, or governance openness." } ], "clusterStats": { "size": 30, "claims": 104, "documents": 34, "meanIntraCos": 0.827, "minIntraCos": 0.761 }, "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0756/c8", "open-science-source-09/c3", "osft-doc-1287/c30", "osft-doc-1673/c165", "osft-doc-0002/c3", "osft-doc-1327/c457", "osft-doc-1737/c10", "osft-doc-0860/c4", "osft-doc-0020/c12", "osft-doc-0777/c11", "osft-doc-1327/c16", "open-science-source-09/c5", "open-science-source-15-c2/c21", "osft-doc-1373/c310", "osft-doc-0645/c116", "osft-doc-0756/c4", "osft-doc-1327/c818", "osft-doc-1673/c132", "osft-doc-1327/c335", "open-science-source-27/c13", "osft-doc-1327/c794", "open-science-source-03/c45", "open-science-source-03/c47", "open-science-source-54-c2/c134", "osft-doc-1193/c72", "osft-doc-1373/c439", "osft-doc-1373/c496", "osft-doc-1373/c520", "osft-doc-1373/c538", "osft-doc-1327/c727" ], "clusterMemberOrder": [ "osft-doc-1327/c335", "osft-doc-1327/c16", "osft-doc-1327/c818", "open-science-source-03/c47", "open-science-source-15-c2/c21", "osft-doc-1737/c10", "osft-doc-0002/c3", "osft-doc-1327/c727", "open-science-source-03/c45", "osft-doc-1327/c457", "osft-doc-1327/c794", "open-science-source-27/c13", "osft-doc-0777/c11", "osft-doc-1673/c165", "osft-doc-0645/c116", "osft-doc-1673/c132", "osft-doc-1373/c310", "osft-doc-1193/c72", "osft-doc-1373/c496", "osft-doc-0860/c4", "open-science-source-54-c2/c134", "osft-doc-1287/c30", "osft-doc-1373/c439", "open-science-source-09/c3", "osft-doc-1373/c520", "osft-doc-0756/c4", "open-science-source-09/c5", "osft-doc-0020/c12", "osft-doc-0756/c8", "osft-doc-1373/c538" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 30, "claims": 104, "documents": 34 } }, { "id": "bu-023", "kind": "convergence", "name": "Research outputs must be deposited in trustworthy, certified repositories ensuring long-term preservation.", "definition": "Members hold that researchers should deposit publications, data, and other outputs in repositories that meet defined quality or certification standards (e.g., RatSWD accreditation criteria, CoreTrustSeal, re3data listing requirements, ECRIN certification) so that content remains long-term accessible, interoperable, discoverable, and FAIR. The cluster covers both general deposit mandates (which repository types qualify: institutional, disciplinary, agency-run, PubMed Central) and the specific criteria bodies use to certify or vet such repositories, including domain-specific certification schemes for clinical trial data or structural biology archives. It does not cover positions about access to or restrictions on bibliometric/citation databases such as Web of Science or Scopus, which concern metadata licensing rather than repository trustworthiness or deposit obligations.", "coherence": "medium", "subpositions": [ { "statement": "Repositories must satisfy specific accreditation criteria (RatSWD, CoreTrustSeal, re3data).", "members": [ 0, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 20 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1507/c88", "osft-doc-1507/c87", "osft-doc-1507/c128", "osft-doc-1507/c86", "osft-doc-1507/c127", "osft-doc-1507/c89", "osft-doc-1507/c57", "osft-doc-1507/c90", "osft-doc-1507/c100" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Researchers should deposit outputs in trusted, FAIR-aligned repositories for preservation.", "members": [ 1, 2, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-20/c17", "osft-doc-0211/c25", "osft-doc-0963/c24", "open-science-source-29/c12", "open-science-source-03/c97", "osft-doc-1283/c71", "open-science-source-24-c1/c55", "open-science-source-24-c8/c15", "open-science-source-09/c46", "open-science-source-24-c8/c16", "open-science-source-23/c35", "open-science-source-24-c2/c102" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Domain-specific certification programs vet specialized data repositories (clinical trials, protein structures).", "members": [ 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-16-c1/c130", "osft-doc-1507/c126", "osft-doc-1507/c125", "osft-doc-1507/c122", "osft-doc-1507/c123" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" } ], "outliers": [ { "rep": "open-science-source-05/c33", "text": "The Web of Science and Scopus databases impose severe restrictions on the use of their metadata.", "why": "About Web of Science/Scopus metadata restrictions, not repository deposit or certification." }, { "rep": "open-science-source-05/c32", "text": "The Web of Science and Scopus databases provide metadata for scientific publications.", "why": "Describes what WoS/Scopus provide, unrelated to repository trustworthiness or deposit." }, { "rep": "open-science-source-05/c34", "text": "The Web of Science and Scopus databases make their metadata available only to organizations that pay hefty subscription fees.", "why": "Concerns subscription fees for metadata access, not repository certification or deposit." } ], "clusterStats": { "size": 29, "claims": 73, "documents": 35, "meanIntraCos": 0.83, "minIntraCos": 0.754 }, "starIds": [ "open-science-source-29/c12", "open-science-source-03/c97", "open-science-source-20/c17", "osft-doc-1283/c71", "osft-doc-0211/c25", "open-science-source-23/c35", "open-science-source-24-c1/c55", "open-science-source-24-c8/c16", "osft-doc-0963/c24", "osft-doc-1507/c86", "osft-doc-1507/c88", "open-science-source-05/c32", "open-science-source-05/c33", "open-science-source-05/c34", "open-science-source-09/c46", "open-science-source-16-c1/c130", "open-science-source-24-c2/c102", "open-science-source-24-c8/c15", "osft-doc-1507/c100", "osft-doc-1507/c122", "osft-doc-1507/c123", "osft-doc-1507/c125", "osft-doc-1507/c126", "osft-doc-1507/c127", "osft-doc-1507/c128", "osft-doc-1507/c57", "osft-doc-1507/c87", "osft-doc-1507/c89", "osft-doc-1507/c90" ], "clusterMemberOrder": [ "osft-doc-1507/c88", "open-science-source-20/c17", "osft-doc-0211/c25", "osft-doc-1507/c87", "osft-doc-1507/c128", "osft-doc-1507/c86", "osft-doc-0963/c24", "osft-doc-1507/c127", "open-science-source-29/c12", "osft-doc-1507/c89", "open-science-source-03/c97", "osft-doc-1507/c57", "osft-doc-1283/c71", "osft-doc-1507/c90", "open-science-source-24-c1/c55", "open-science-source-24-c8/c15", "open-science-source-09/c46", "open-science-source-24-c8/c16", "open-science-source-23/c35", "open-science-source-24-c2/c102", "osft-doc-1507/c100", "open-science-source-16-c1/c130", "osft-doc-1507/c126", "osft-doc-1507/c125", "osft-doc-1507/c122", "osft-doc-1507/c123", "open-science-source-05/c33", "open-science-source-05/c32", "open-science-source-05/c34" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 29, "claims": 73, "documents": 35 } }, { "id": "bu-024", "kind": "mixed", "name": "Institutions, funders and metric-suppliers should adopt structured, transparent policies enforcing open science practices", "definition": "This cluster bundles several distinct institutional-governance mechanisms for open science rather than one shared claim: (1) certification and infrastructure requirements for FAIR health data (training, ISO standards, FAIR4Health/FAIR4FHIR platforms); (2) government open science action plans with specific roles, deadlines and coordinating bodies (Chief Scientific Data Officer, Open Science Steering Committee, October 2020/June 2021 deadlines); (3) transparency and anti-manipulation obligations for organizations that supply research metrics/indicators; and (4) calls for quantitative indicators to complement, not replace, qualitative or expert judgement in research assessment. A position belongs here if it prescribes a concrete institutional mechanism, role, standard or deadline for operationalizing openness, certification, or metric governance. It does NOT belong if it merely states a general normative principle of open science (e.g. 'data should be shared') without specifying the institutional mechanism, or if it addresses unrelated policy domains like equity capacity-building.", "coherence": "low", "subpositions": [ { "statement": "Health research institutions must meet specific FAIR certification and infrastructure requirements.", "members": [ 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 11, 14, 18 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1507/c164", "osft-doc-1507/c161", "osft-doc-1507/c162", "osft-doc-1507/c165", "osft-doc-1507/c168", "osft-doc-1507/c166", "osft-doc-1507/c22", "osft-doc-1507/c146" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Federal agencies should implement Open Science Action Plans with defined roles and deadlines.", "members": [ 3, 8, 9, 19, 23, 24, 25, 28, 36 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0951/c18", "osft-doc-0951/c27", "osft-doc-1646/c38", "osft-doc-0951/c19", "osft-doc-1737/c28", "osft-doc-1646/c40", "osft-doc-0951/c17", "osft-doc-1737/c51", "osft-doc-1737/c48" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Metric-supplying organizations should be transparent and guard against manipulation of indicators.", "members": [ 10, 12, 13, 20, 22, 29, 32, 35, 37, 38, 40 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0108/c45", "osft-doc-1047/c4", "osft-doc-0108/c43", "osft-doc-0142/c1267", "osft-doc-0108/c47", "osft-doc-0142/c1230", "osft-doc-0142/c90", "osft-doc-1373/c418", "osft-doc-0142/c89", "osft-doc-0142/c607", "osft-doc-0108/c46" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Quantitative indicators should complement, not replace, qualitative or expert judgement.", "members": [ 30, 34, 39 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1449/c333", "osft-doc-0050/c75", "osft-doc-0142/c28" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Researchers and grantees should comply with general open science and reporting mandates.", "members": [ 0, 6, 15, 16, 17, 21, 26, 33, 27 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1373/c475", "osft-doc-0084/c59", "open-science-source-25/c14", "osft-doc-0050/c42", "osft-doc-0441/c317", "osft-doc-1283/c109", "osft-doc-0211/c26", "osft-doc-0050/c197", "open-science-source-09/c51" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" } ], "outliers": [ { "rep": "open-science-source-24-c1/c47", "text": "Federal agencies and departments should deliberately build capacity for robust equity assessment for policymaking and program implementation.", "why": "Concerns equity assessment capacity-building, not FAIR/metrics/action-plan governance" }, { "rep": "osft-doc-0050/c42", "text": "Many existing frameworks focus on how researchers should produce reusable data.", "why": "Meta-observation about existing frameworks, not itself a policy prescription" }, { "rep": "osft-doc-0050/c197", "text": "Mandates and structured checks may be necessary at reporting stage.", "why": "Too vague/general to tie to any specific mechanism in the cluster" } ], "clusterStats": { "size": 41, "claims": 108, "documents": 32, "meanIntraCos": 0.82, "minIntraCos": 0.748 }, "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0108/c43", "osft-doc-1449/c333", "osft-doc-0211/c26", "osft-doc-0951/c18", "osft-doc-0951/c19", "osft-doc-0142/c28", "osft-doc-0142/c89", "osft-doc-1373/c418", "osft-doc-1373/c475", "osft-doc-1646/c38", "osft-doc-1646/c40", "osft-doc-1737/c51", "osft-doc-1507/c161", "osft-doc-1507/c162", "osft-doc-0441/c317", "osft-doc-0050/c75", "osft-doc-0142/c1230", "osft-doc-0142/c90", "open-science-source-09/c51", "open-science-source-24-c1/c47", "open-science-source-25/c14", "osft-doc-0050/c197", "osft-doc-0050/c42", "osft-doc-0084/c59", "osft-doc-0108/c45", "osft-doc-0108/c46", "osft-doc-0108/c47", "osft-doc-0142/c1267", "osft-doc-0142/c607", "osft-doc-0951/c17", "osft-doc-0951/c27", "osft-doc-1047/c4", "osft-doc-1283/c109", "osft-doc-1507/c146", "osft-doc-1507/c164", "osft-doc-1507/c165", "osft-doc-1507/c166", "osft-doc-1507/c168", "osft-doc-1507/c22", "osft-doc-1737/c28", "osft-doc-1737/c48" ], "clusterMemberOrder": [ "osft-doc-1373/c475", "osft-doc-1507/c164", "osft-doc-1507/c161", "osft-doc-0951/c18", "osft-doc-1507/c162", "osft-doc-1507/c165", "osft-doc-0084/c59", "osft-doc-1507/c168", "osft-doc-0951/c27", "osft-doc-1646/c38", "osft-doc-0108/c45", "osft-doc-1507/c166", "osft-doc-1047/c4", "osft-doc-0108/c43", "osft-doc-1507/c22", "open-science-source-25/c14", "osft-doc-0050/c42", "osft-doc-0441/c317", "osft-doc-1507/c146", "osft-doc-0951/c19", "osft-doc-0142/c1267", "osft-doc-1283/c109", "osft-doc-0108/c47", "osft-doc-1737/c28", "osft-doc-1646/c40", "osft-doc-0951/c17", "osft-doc-0211/c26", "open-science-source-09/c51", "osft-doc-1737/c51", "osft-doc-0142/c1230", "osft-doc-1449/c333", "open-science-source-24-c1/c47", "osft-doc-0142/c90", "osft-doc-0050/c197", "osft-doc-0050/c75", "osft-doc-1373/c418", "osft-doc-1737/c48", "osft-doc-0142/c89", "osft-doc-0142/c607", "osft-doc-0142/c28", "osft-doc-0108/c46" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 41, "claims": 108, "documents": 32 } }, { "id": "bu-025", "kind": "mixed", "name": "Article processing charges impose inequitable financial barriers on under-resourced, early-career, and LMIC authors", "definition": "Members mainly claim that article processing charges (APCs) and other author-side fees are a financial barrier to open-access publishing, and that this burden falls disproportionately on researchers with less funding — including early-career, female, and Low- and Middle-Income Country authors — while journal prestige (e.g. JIF) pressures push authors toward costlier venues anyway. A secondary strand covers publisher business-model dynamics not directly about the fee-as-barrier claim: hybrid-journal double-dipping, and the risk that publishers will bundle workflow services into new 'big deal' style contracts, plus how transparency or competition might counter this. A new position belongs here if it concerns who bears the cost of publishing and how that cost creates inequity or barriers; it does NOT belong if it is only about archival/preservation separate from publishing, or about OA book publishing specifically in the Humanities, without reference to cost or financial burden.", "coherence": "medium", "subpositions": [ { "statement": "APCs and author fees create financial barriers, worst for less-resourced authors.", "members": [ 0, 1, 2, 3, 5, 11, 12, 14, 15 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-24-c2/c10", "open-science-source-24-c4/c33", "open-science-source-24-c3/c37", "open-science-source-38/c156", "osft-doc-1673/c168", "open-science-source-24-c4/c39", "open-science-source-24-c4/c38", "open-science-source-02/c174", "open-science-source-24-c3/c40" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Producing and sharing peer-reviewed, open research is never actually costless.", "members": [ 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 13 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0504/c22", "open-science-source-36/c164", "osft-doc-1327/c702", "open-science-source-02/c308", "open-science-source-25/c38", "open-science-source-29/c26" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Hybrid journals charge higher APCs and double-dip via subscriptions plus fees.", "members": [ 9, 16, 18 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-02/c323", "open-science-source-02/c325", "open-science-source-02/c320" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Journal prestige and impact-factor concerns discourage adoption of open access.", "members": [ 17, 21 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-55/c16", "osft-doc-1373/c606" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Publishers may bundle workflow services into costly new 'big deal' contracts.", "members": [ 19, 20, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1373/c623", "osft-doc-1373/c625", "osft-doc-1373/c622", "osft-doc-0825/c61", "osft-doc-1373/c102", "open-science-source-36/c334", "osft-doc-1373/c104", "osft-doc-1373/c103", "osft-doc-0825/c48" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" } ], "outliers": [ { "rep": "open-science-source-05/c87", "text": "Some, but not all, publishing platforms also support archival through the publishing process.", "why": "About archival support in publishing platforms, not fees or financial barriers" }, { "rep": "osft-doc-1373/c274", "text": "Open Access books are a major problem in the Humanities, but less so in STEM.", "why": "About OA books in the Humanities as a field-specific problem, not cost/barrier claim" }, { "rep": "osft-doc-0504/c9", "text": "Open access has so far been limited to small portions of the journal literature.", "why": "Descriptive claim about scope of OA adoption, unrelated to financial barriers" }, { "rep": "open-science-source-05/c85", "text": "Publishing is separate from archival.", "why": "Definitional claim distinguishing publishing from archival, not about cost or equity" } ], "clusterStats": { "size": 33, "claims": 109, "documents": 32, "meanIntraCos": 0.813, "minIntraCos": 0.746 }, "starIds": [ "open-science-source-24-c2/c10", "open-science-source-02/c174", "open-science-source-24-c3/c40", "open-science-source-24-c3/c37", "osft-doc-1673/c168", "open-science-source-24-c4/c39", "osft-doc-0504/c22", "osft-doc-1373/c274", "osft-doc-1373/c622", "osft-doc-1327/c702", "open-science-source-24-c4/c33", "open-science-source-02/c320", "open-science-source-24-c4/c38", "open-science-source-36/c334", "open-science-source-38/c156", "osft-doc-1373/c102", "osft-doc-1373/c103", "osft-doc-1373/c104", "open-science-source-25/c38", "open-science-source-29/c26", "osft-doc-1373/c623", "osft-doc-1373/c625", "open-science-source-02/c308", "open-science-source-02/c323", "open-science-source-02/c325", "open-science-source-05/c85", "open-science-source-05/c87", "open-science-source-36/c164", "open-science-source-55/c16", "osft-doc-0504/c9", "osft-doc-0825/c48", "osft-doc-0825/c61", "osft-doc-1373/c606" ], "clusterMemberOrder": [ "open-science-source-24-c2/c10", "open-science-source-24-c4/c33", "open-science-source-24-c3/c37", "open-science-source-38/c156", "osft-doc-0504/c22", "osft-doc-1673/c168", "open-science-source-36/c164", "osft-doc-1327/c702", "open-science-source-02/c308", "open-science-source-02/c323", "open-science-source-25/c38", "open-science-source-24-c4/c39", "open-science-source-24-c4/c38", "open-science-source-29/c26", "open-science-source-02/c174", "open-science-source-24-c3/c40", "open-science-source-02/c325", "open-science-source-55/c16", "open-science-source-02/c320", "osft-doc-1373/c623", "osft-doc-1373/c625", "osft-doc-1373/c606", "open-science-source-05/c87", "osft-doc-1373/c274", "osft-doc-0504/c9", "osft-doc-1373/c622", "osft-doc-0825/c61", "osft-doc-1373/c102", "open-science-source-36/c334", "osft-doc-1373/c104", "open-science-source-05/c85", "osft-doc-1373/c103", "osft-doc-0825/c48" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 33, "claims": 109, "documents": 32 } }, { "id": "bu-026", "kind": "mixed", "name": "Many distinct barriers — awareness, incentives, training, infrastructure, metadata — impede open science adoption", "definition": "Members describe a wide range of specific, largely unrelated obstacles that slow or prevent uptake of open science practices: unclear costs and value of FAIR data certification, weak researcher incentives and cultural inertia, gaps in open-scholarship education and training pipelines, missing metadata/licensing/skills in data sharing, and lack of transparency in research metrics and indicators. It does NOT cover positions that prescribe solutions or normative obligations (e.g., 'funders should mandate data sharing') or that assert open science's benefits rather than its obstacles; it also excludes general definitional statements about what counts as open (e.g., merely offering tools is not enough) unless framed as a barrier. A new position belongs here if it identifies a concrete, empirically observed impediment to open practices' spread, regardless of which sub-domain (certification, education, data infrastructure, incentives, metrics) it falls in.", "coherence": "low", "subpositions": [ { "statement": "FAIR data certification is hindered by unclear costs, value, and process outcomes.", "members": [ 0, 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 14, 17, 18, 26, 28 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1507/c36", "osft-doc-1507/c37", "osft-doc-1507/c38", "osft-doc-1507/c40", "osft-doc-1507/c39", "osft-doc-1507/c35", "osft-doc-1507/c42", "osft-doc-1686/c163", "osft-doc-1507/c41", "osft-doc-1507/c16", "open-science-source-26/c32" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Researchers lack sufficient incentives, motivation, or cultural support to adopt open practices.", "members": [ 4, 6, 10, 11, 16, 33, 36, 40, 46, 48 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1459/c549", "osft-doc-1353/c135", "osft-doc-0441/c88", "osft-doc-0411/c31", "osft-doc-0298/c132", "osft-doc-1869/c230", "osft-doc-1373/c550", "osft-doc-1373/c553", "osft-doc-1373/c609", "osft-doc-1373/c617" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Open scholarship training and education are largely missing from curricula and pipelines.", "members": [ 20, 21, 23, 25, 29, 38, 42, 43 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1878/c75", "osft-doc-0441/c251", "osft-doc-0441/c81", "osft-doc-0441/c250", "osft-doc-0441/c3", "osft-doc-0441/c46", "osft-doc-0441/c47", "osft-doc-0441/c79" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Data sharing is impeded by missing metadata, licensing gaps, and skill shortages.", "members": [ 9, 12, 13, 15, 19, 31, 34, 35, 39, 41 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1373/c610", "open-science-source-19/c17", "osft-doc-1373/c613", "osft-doc-1373/c611", "osft-doc-1373/c595", "osft-doc-0298/c108", "open-science-source-26/c60", "osft-doc-1373/c616", "open-science-source-21/c110", "open-science-source-15-c2/c154" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Research metrics and indicators lack transparency, comparability, and reproducibility.", "members": [ 22, 27, 32, 44, 47 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0730/c25", "open-science-source-05/c35", "open-science-source-05/c26", "osft-doc-0050/c136", "osft-doc-0142/c1083" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Governments, funders, and institutions provide inadequate support or take a wait-and-see approach.", "members": [ 37, 45, 49, 50 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-12/c68", "osft-doc-1373/c508", "osft-doc-1373/c476", "open-science-source-38/c72" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" } ], "outliers": [ { "rep": "osft-doc-1373/c534", "text": "Simply providing research tools is not open.", "why": "A definitional claim about what counts as 'open,' not a described barrier." }, { "rep": "open-science-source-12/c68", "text": "Mandates alone are not enough to drive implementation of open science principles.", "why": "A meta-claim about mandates' insufficiency rather than a specific barrier itself." } ], "clusterStats": { "size": 51, "claims": 125, "documents": 30, "meanIntraCos": 0.826, "minIntraCos": 0.762 }, "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1869/c230", "osft-doc-0411/c31", "osft-doc-0298/c132", "open-science-source-12/c68", "osft-doc-1373/c553", "osft-doc-1459/c549", "osft-doc-0142/c1083", "osft-doc-1373/c476", "osft-doc-1373/c550", "osft-doc-1373/c616", "osft-doc-1373/c617", "open-science-source-05/c26", "open-science-source-15-c2/c154", "osft-doc-0050/c136", "osft-doc-0441/c88", "osft-doc-1878/c75", "osft-doc-0441/c3", "osft-doc-1353/c135", "open-science-source-05/c35", "open-science-source-19/c17", "open-science-source-21/c110", "open-science-source-26/c32", "open-science-source-26/c60", "open-science-source-38/c72", "osft-doc-0298/c108", "osft-doc-0441/c250", "osft-doc-0441/c251", "osft-doc-0441/c46", "osft-doc-0441/c47", "osft-doc-0441/c79", "osft-doc-0441/c81", "osft-doc-0730/c25", "osft-doc-1373/c508", "osft-doc-1373/c534", "osft-doc-1373/c595", "osft-doc-1373/c603", "osft-doc-1373/c609", "osft-doc-1373/c610", "osft-doc-1373/c611", "osft-doc-1373/c613", "osft-doc-1373/c614", "osft-doc-1507/c16", "osft-doc-1507/c35", "osft-doc-1507/c36", "osft-doc-1507/c38", "osft-doc-1507/c40", "osft-doc-1507/c41", "osft-doc-1507/c42", "osft-doc-1686/c163", "osft-doc-1507/c37", "osft-doc-1507/c39" ], "clusterMemberOrder": [ "osft-doc-1507/c36", "osft-doc-1507/c37", "osft-doc-1507/c38", "osft-doc-1507/c40", "osft-doc-1459/c549", "osft-doc-1507/c39", "osft-doc-1353/c135", "osft-doc-1507/c35", "osft-doc-1373/c603", "osft-doc-1373/c610", "osft-doc-0441/c88", "osft-doc-0411/c31", "open-science-source-19/c17", "osft-doc-1373/c613", "osft-doc-1507/c42", "osft-doc-1373/c611", "osft-doc-0298/c132", "osft-doc-1686/c163", "osft-doc-1507/c41", "osft-doc-1373/c595", "osft-doc-1878/c75", "osft-doc-0441/c251", "osft-doc-0730/c25", "osft-doc-0441/c81", "osft-doc-1373/c614", "osft-doc-0441/c250", "osft-doc-1507/c16", "open-science-source-05/c35", "open-science-source-26/c32", "osft-doc-0441/c3", "osft-doc-1373/c534", "osft-doc-0298/c108", "open-science-source-05/c26", "osft-doc-1869/c230", "open-science-source-26/c60", "osft-doc-1373/c616", "osft-doc-1373/c550", "open-science-source-12/c68", "osft-doc-0441/c46", "open-science-source-21/c110", "osft-doc-1373/c553", "open-science-source-15-c2/c154", "osft-doc-0441/c47", "osft-doc-0441/c79", "osft-doc-0050/c136", "osft-doc-1373/c508", "osft-doc-1373/c609", "osft-doc-0142/c1083", "osft-doc-1373/c617", "osft-doc-1373/c476", "open-science-source-38/c72" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 51, "claims": 125, "documents": 30 } }, { "id": "bu-027", "kind": "mixed", "name": "Mechanisms for assessing research quality — peer review, metrics, reproducibility indicators, AI — carry inherent biases and risks", "definition": "Members assert that specific tools and processes used to judge or ensure research quality have built-in limitations: peer review is biased, inconsistent between reviewers, and often untransparent; metrics and reproducibility indicators can be gamed, oversimplify complex practices, or become targets in their own right; reproducibility/replicability norms imported from quantitative traditions may not fit qualitative, exploratory, or interpretivist research; and AI models used in research can inherit bias from their training data or hallucinate. A recurring normative response is that such indicators and metrics must therefore be designed, implemented, and interpreted carefully, transparently, and responsibly. It would NOT include positions about who funds or governs open access publishing, data-sharing mandates, licensing, or infrastructure — this cluster is specifically about the epistemic reliability and unintended consequences of quality-assessment and evaluation mechanisms themselves.", "coherence": "low", "subpositions": [ { "statement": "Peer review is biased, inconsistent, or insufficiently transparent.", "members": [ 2, 4, 6, 9, 17, 20, 22, 28, 33 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-04/c41", "open-science-source-45/c130", "osft-doc-0142/c1203", "open-science-source-18/c334", "open-science-source-18/c437", "osft-doc-0441/c134", "open-science-source-04/c40", "osft-doc-0441/c133", "open-science-source-18/c452" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Metrics and indicators can be gamed, so must be carefully designed and used responsibly.", "members": [ 3, 10, 18, 19, 21, 26, 31, 32, 38, 39 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0142/c1213", "osft-doc-0050/c76", "osft-doc-0142/c119", "osft-doc-0150/c53", "osft-doc-1449/c329", "osft-doc-0142/c1344", "osft-doc-0050/c60", "osft-doc-0142/c912", "open-science-source-43/c90", "osft-doc-1373/c429" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Reproducibility indicators risk oversimplifying or marginalising research outside quantitative norms.", "members": [ 0, 1, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 23, 24, 25, 37 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0050/c73", "osft-doc-0050/c71", "osft-doc-0050/c165", "osft-doc-0050/c74", "osft-doc-0050/c147", "open-science-source-50/c92", "open-science-source-04/c89", "osft-doc-0050/c72", "osft-doc-0150/c204", "osft-doc-0050/c174", "osft-doc-0050/c164", "osft-doc-0441/c40", "osft-doc-0441/c41", "osft-doc-0050/c80" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "AI models used in research risk bias and hallucination.", "members": [ 30, 35, 40 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-41/c300", "open-science-source-42/c433", "open-science-source-42/c55" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Epistemic uncertainty is intrinsic to scientific claims and should inform judgement.", "members": [ 20, 28, 29, 36 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0441/c134", "osft-doc-0441/c133", "osft-doc-0441/c130", "osft-doc-0441/c132" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" } ], "outliers": [ { "rep": "osft-doc-0050/c44", "text": "Guidance for those who re-use data is often fragmented across disciplines.", "why": "About fragmentation of data-reuse guidance across disciplines, not an evaluation-mechanism bias/risk claim." }, { "rep": "open-science-source-12/c16", "text": "Research is often fragmented, with data in one place, methods in another, and code somewhere else.", "why": "Describes research artefact fragmentation (data/methods/code), not a quality-assessment limitation." }, { "rep": "osft-doc-0050/c43", "text": "Comparable guidance for those who re-use data remains less developed than guidance for producing reusable data.", "why": "Concerns underdevelopment of data-reuse guidance rather than assessment-tool bias or risk." }, { "rep": "open-science-source-48/c4", "text": "Skepticism about the trustworthiness of content is not a new situation.", "why": "General historical remark about skepticism, not tied to a specific evaluation mechanism." } ], "clusterStats": { "size": 44, "claims": 109, "documents": 27, "meanIntraCos": 0.815, "minIntraCos": 0.753 }, "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1449/c329", "open-science-source-04/c40", "osft-doc-0142/c1344", "open-science-source-45/c130", "open-science-source-04/c41", "open-science-source-42/c55", "osft-doc-0150/c53", "osft-doc-0441/c40", "osft-doc-1373/c429", "open-science-source-41/c300", "osft-doc-0050/c60", "osft-doc-0142/c1203", "osft-doc-0150/c204", "osft-doc-0441/c41", "open-science-source-03/c245", "open-science-source-04/c89", "open-science-source-12/c16", "open-science-source-18/c334", "open-science-source-18/c437", "open-science-source-18/c452", "open-science-source-42/c433", "open-science-source-43/c90", "open-science-source-48/c4", "open-science-source-50/c92", "osft-doc-0050/c147", "osft-doc-0050/c165", "osft-doc-0050/c43", "osft-doc-0050/c44", "osft-doc-0050/c71", "osft-doc-0050/c72", "osft-doc-0050/c73", "osft-doc-0050/c74", "osft-doc-0050/c76", "osft-doc-0050/c80", "osft-doc-0142/c119", "osft-doc-0142/c1213", "osft-doc-0142/c912", "osft-doc-0441/c130", "osft-doc-0441/c132", "osft-doc-0441/c133", "osft-doc-0441/c134", "osft-doc-0441/c138", "osft-doc-0050/c164", "osft-doc-0050/c174" ], "clusterMemberOrder": [ "osft-doc-0050/c73", "osft-doc-0050/c71", "open-science-source-04/c41", "osft-doc-0142/c1213", "open-science-source-45/c130", "osft-doc-0050/c165", "osft-doc-0142/c1203", "osft-doc-0050/c74", "osft-doc-0050/c147", "open-science-source-18/c334", "osft-doc-0050/c76", "open-science-source-50/c92", "open-science-source-04/c89", "osft-doc-0050/c72", "osft-doc-0441/c138", "osft-doc-0150/c204", "osft-doc-0050/c174", "open-science-source-18/c437", "osft-doc-0142/c119", "osft-doc-0150/c53", "osft-doc-0441/c134", "osft-doc-1449/c329", "open-science-source-04/c40", "osft-doc-0050/c164", "osft-doc-0441/c40", "osft-doc-0441/c41", "osft-doc-0142/c1344", "open-science-source-03/c245", "osft-doc-0441/c133", "osft-doc-0441/c130", "open-science-source-41/c300", "osft-doc-0050/c60", "osft-doc-0142/c912", "open-science-source-18/c452", "osft-doc-0050/c44", "open-science-source-42/c433", "osft-doc-0441/c132", "osft-doc-0050/c80", "open-science-source-43/c90", "osft-doc-1373/c429", "open-science-source-42/c55", "open-science-source-12/c16", "osft-doc-0050/c43", "open-science-source-48/c4" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 44, "claims": 109, "documents": 27 } }, { "id": "bu-028", "kind": "mixed", "name": "Open Scholarship is a broad, principle-driven movement encompassing diverse practices, disciplines, and communities worldwide", "definition": "Members define Open Scholarship (and its relation to Open Science, Open Access, and Open Education) as a holistic, cross-disciplinary movement grounded in principles such as inclusivity, participation, collaboration, equity, sharing, equality, transparency, and cognitive justice. They also make empirical claims about the movement's global growth, institutional support, infrastructure, and adoption barriers, and normative claims about how it should be made more equitable, multilingual, and globally representative. A new position belongs here if it characterizes what Open Scholarship IS, what values it embodies, or how it is spreading/should spread as a general movement or ecosystem. It does NOT belong if it makes a specific, narrow claim about a single mechanism or policy (e.g., a particular funding model, licensing rule, or peer-review procedure) without framing it as part of this general definitional or principled discussion of the movement.", "coherence": "low", "subpositions": [ { "statement": "Open Scholarship is a holistic term including Open Science, Access, Education.", "members": [ 0, 1, 13, 16, 18, 28, 34, 37, 38, 41, 46, 51, 59, 68 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1373/c7", "osft-doc-0441/c345", "osft-doc-1459/c6", "osft-doc-0441/c347", "osft-doc-1373/c457", "osft-doc-1569/c7", "osft-doc-1673/c117", "open-science-source-03/c56", "osft-doc-1459/c237", "osft-doc-1253/c14", "osft-doc-1283/c4", "osft-doc-1673/c118", "osft-doc-1373/c224", "osft-doc-1373/c539" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Core principles of Open Scholarship include equity, transparency, sharing, participation.", "members": [ 2, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, 15, 20, 23, 27, 33, 42, 86 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1459/c278", "osft-doc-1459/c271", "osft-doc-1673/c152", "osft-doc-1673/c154", "osft-doc-1459/c276", "osft-doc-1459/c272", "osft-doc-1459/c273", "osft-doc-1373/c306", "osft-doc-1459/c274", "osft-doc-1459/c270", "osft-doc-1373/c305", "osft-doc-1373/c307", "osft-doc-1373/c311" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "The movement has grown globally with strong institutional support and infrastructure.", "members": [ 39, 43, 55, 60, 65, 67, 73, 80, 82, 84, 85, 88 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1373/c580", "osft-doc-1373/c229", "osft-doc-1373/c485", "osft-doc-1373/c484", "osft-doc-1373/c228", "open-science-source-05/c50", "osft-doc-1373/c589", "osft-doc-1373/c218", "osft-doc-1327/c299", "osft-doc-1373/c262", "open-science-source-05/c54", "osft-doc-1459/c291" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Awareness, tools, incentives, and community support are preconditions for adoption.", "members": [ 45, 47, 54, 58, 69, 71, 77, 78, 79, 89 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1373/c301", "osft-doc-1373/c254", "osft-doc-1373/c313", "osft-doc-1373/c256", "osft-doc-1373/c255", "osft-doc-1373/c253", "osft-doc-1373/c257", "osft-doc-1673/c157", "osft-doc-1373/c314", "osft-doc-0441/c56" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Open Scholarship must become more equitable, multilingual, and globally inclusive.", "members": [ 32, 48, 50, 53, 61, 62, 63, 64, 70, 75, 76, 81, 87 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1327/c23", "osft-doc-1459/c266", "osft-doc-1673/c324", "osft-doc-1373/c266", "osft-doc-1373/c110", "osft-doc-1373/c633", "osft-doc-1459/c468", "osft-doc-1373/c486", "osft-doc-1373/c567", "osft-doc-1459/c566", "osft-doc-1869/c169", "osft-doc-1373/c527", "osft-doc-1373/c579" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" } ], "outliers": [ { "rep": "osft-doc-1373/c560", "text": "Initiatives such as The 2.5% Commitment could be important in the future for Open Scholarship.", "why": "references a specific named initiative (2.5% Commitment) rather than a general claim" }, { "rep": "osft-doc-1373/c311", "text": "Several specific mechanisms, including peer-to-peer and blockchain-based mechanisms, have been recently proposed to realise democratic values in Open Scholarship in a decentralised way.", "why": "narrow technical claim about blockchain/peer-to-peer mechanisms" }, { "rep": "osft-doc-0951/c34", "text": "The Roadmap for Open Science has implications for open scholarship on a global scale.", "why": "refers to a specific named document (Roadmap for Open Science)" }, { "rep": "osft-doc-1373/c316", "text": "A number of recent initiatives exist that work towards the development of copyright frameworks that help the Open Scholarship cause.", "why": "narrow claim about copyright framework initiatives" }, { "rep": "osft-doc-1373/c454", "text": "The 'Open' movement goes beyond just scholarship, and is related to wider fields such as Open Culture, Open Government, Open Source, and Open Society.", "why": "concerns the broader 'Open' movement beyond scholarship specifically" }, { "rep": "osft-doc-0441/c74", "text": "Many of the changes encouraged to foster adoption of open scholarship in the last decade have been grassroots campaigns sparked and sustained by individual early adopters, rather than top-down initiatives at the institutional level.", "why": "specific historical claim about grassroots vs top-down adoption pattern" }, { "rep": "osft-doc-1373/c543", "text": "Legal and economic knowledge may be as important as technical knowledge in Open Scholarship.", "why": "narrow claim about legal/economic vs technical knowledge importance" } ], "clusterStats": { "size": 91, "claims": 263, "documents": 28, "meanIntraCos": 0.843, "minIntraCos": 0.774 }, "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1459/c6", "osft-doc-1673/c324", "osft-doc-1869/c201", "osft-doc-1373/c234", "osft-doc-1327/c299", "osft-doc-1253/c14", "osft-doc-1373/c7", "osft-doc-1373/c229", "osft-doc-1459/c270", "osft-doc-1459/c273", "osft-doc-1673/c276", "osft-doc-1373/c222", "osft-doc-1373/c246", "osft-doc-1373/c253", "osft-doc-1373/c539", "osft-doc-1673/c157", "osft-doc-1373/c228", "osft-doc-1373/c293", "osft-doc-1373/c633", "osft-doc-1459/c468", "osft-doc-1283/c4", "osft-doc-1869/c132", "open-science-source-03/c56", "osft-doc-0441/c345", "osft-doc-1283/c1", "osft-doc-1283/c2", "osft-doc-1373/c110", "osft-doc-1373/c218", "osft-doc-1373/c257", "osft-doc-1373/c262", "osft-doc-1373/c305", "osft-doc-1373/c306", "osft-doc-1373/c307", "osft-doc-1373/c311", "osft-doc-1373/c313", "osft-doc-1373/c314", "osft-doc-1373/c338", "osft-doc-1373/c456", "osft-doc-1373/c457", "osft-doc-1373/c458", "osft-doc-1373/c484", "osft-doc-1373/c486", "osft-doc-1373/c503", "osft-doc-1373/c527", "osft-doc-1373/c543", "osft-doc-1373/c567", "osft-doc-1373/c579", "osft-doc-1373/c580", "osft-doc-1373/c589", "osft-doc-1459/c276", "osft-doc-1459/c278", "osft-doc-1459/c291", "osft-doc-0441/c171", "osft-doc-1673/c117", "osft-doc-1373/c485", "osft-doc-1673/c118", "osft-doc-1459/c266", "osft-doc-1869/c223", "open-science-source-25/c9", "osft-doc-1459/c566", "osft-doc-1673/c154", "osft-doc-1869/c169", "open-science-source-05/c50", "open-science-source-05/c54", "osft-doc-0441/c347", "osft-doc-0441/c53", "osft-doc-0441/c56", "osft-doc-0441/c74", "osft-doc-0951/c34", "osft-doc-1327/c23", "osft-doc-1373/c14", "osft-doc-1373/c15", "osft-doc-1373/c224", "osft-doc-1373/c254", "osft-doc-1373/c255", "osft-doc-1373/c256", "osft-doc-1373/c266", "osft-doc-1373/c301", "osft-doc-1373/c316", "osft-doc-1373/c454", "osft-doc-1373/c464", "osft-doc-1373/c469", "osft-doc-1373/c560", "osft-doc-1373/c581", "osft-doc-1459/c237", "osft-doc-1459/c271", "osft-doc-1459/c272", "osft-doc-1459/c274", "osft-doc-1569/c7", "osft-doc-1673/c152", "osft-doc-1878/c168" ], "clusterMemberOrder": [ "osft-doc-1373/c7", "osft-doc-0441/c345", "osft-doc-1459/c278", "osft-doc-1373/c234", "osft-doc-1459/c271", "osft-doc-1373/c222", "osft-doc-1673/c152", "osft-doc-1869/c132", "osft-doc-1373/c14", "osft-doc-1673/c154", "osft-doc-1459/c276", "osft-doc-1459/c272", "osft-doc-1869/c201", "osft-doc-1459/c6", "osft-doc-1673/c276", "osft-doc-1459/c273", "osft-doc-0441/c347", "osft-doc-1373/c338", "osft-doc-1373/c457", "osft-doc-1373/c246", "osft-doc-1373/c306", "open-science-source-25/c9", "osft-doc-1869/c223", "osft-doc-1459/c274", "osft-doc-1373/c503", "osft-doc-1373/c293", "osft-doc-1373/c454", "osft-doc-1459/c270", "osft-doc-1569/c7", "osft-doc-1373/c581", "osft-doc-0951/c34", "osft-doc-1373/c456", "osft-doc-1327/c23", "osft-doc-1373/c305", "osft-doc-1673/c117", "osft-doc-1283/c1", "osft-doc-1283/c2", "open-science-source-03/c56", "osft-doc-1459/c237", "osft-doc-1373/c580", "osft-doc-1373/c15", "osft-doc-1253/c14", "osft-doc-1373/c307", "osft-doc-1373/c229", "osft-doc-1373/c464", "osft-doc-1373/c301", "osft-doc-1283/c4", "osft-doc-1373/c254", "osft-doc-1459/c266", "osft-doc-1373/c458", "osft-doc-1673/c324", "osft-doc-1673/c118", "osft-doc-0441/c53", "osft-doc-1373/c266", "osft-doc-1373/c313", "osft-doc-1373/c485", "osft-doc-1373/c560", "osft-doc-1373/c543", "osft-doc-1373/c256", "osft-doc-1373/c224", "osft-doc-1373/c484", "osft-doc-1373/c110", "osft-doc-1373/c633", "osft-doc-1459/c468", "osft-doc-1373/c486", "osft-doc-1373/c228", "osft-doc-1373/c316", "open-science-source-05/c50", "osft-doc-1373/c539", "osft-doc-1373/c255", "osft-doc-1373/c567", "osft-doc-1373/c253", "osft-doc-1878/c168", "osft-doc-1373/c589", "osft-doc-0441/c171", "osft-doc-1459/c566", "osft-doc-1869/c169", "osft-doc-1373/c257", "osft-doc-1673/c157", "osft-doc-1373/c314", "osft-doc-1373/c218", "osft-doc-1373/c527", "osft-doc-1327/c299", "osft-doc-1373/c469", "osft-doc-1373/c262", "open-science-source-05/c54", "osft-doc-1373/c311", "osft-doc-1373/c579", "osft-doc-1459/c291", "osft-doc-0441/c56", "osft-doc-0441/c74" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 91, "claims": 263, "documents": 28 } }, { "id": "bu-029", "kind": "mixed", "name": "Open science needs vary by discipline and stakeholder group, so no single approach fits all", "definition": "Members claim that scholarly communication and open science involve diverse disciplines, actors, and stakeholder groups whose needs, definitions (e.g., of reproducibility, quality, replicability), uptake, and interests differ, so uniform \"one-size-fits-all\" policies or mandates are unlikely to work and top-down/bottom-up approaches must be balanced. They also describe how these differing, sometimes conflicting, stakeholder interests slow reform and shape evaluation and training. This does NOT include specific technical or administrative requirements for repository deposit templates (such as which metadata fields to include or who attaches them), which is a distinct procedural matter about public-access compliance mechanics rather than about disciplinary or stakeholder diversity.", "coherence": "medium", "subpositions": [ { "statement": "Practices, definitions, and uptake of open science differ by discipline.", "members": [ 0, 4, 5, 7, 12, 16, 17, 22, 23, 25 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1327/c416", "osft-doc-1327/c415", "osft-doc-0150/c3", "open-science-source-37-c1/c120", "open-science-source-18/c167", "open-science-source-36/c181", "open-science-source-50/c72", "osft-doc-1507/c145", "osft-doc-1373/c273", "open-science-source-41/c423" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "No single, uniform open-science approach fits all contexts.", "members": [ 2, 3, 6, 10 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1327/c731", "open-science-source-03/c259", "osft-doc-1373/c259", "open-science-source-03/c142" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Diverse stakeholder groups have differing, often conflicting, interests and goals.", "members": [ 8, 9, 15, 18, 19, 21 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1327/c60", "osft-doc-1459/c312", "osft-doc-1327/c1083", "osft-doc-1373/c282", "osft-doc-1459/c315", "osft-doc-1373/c238" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Top-down and bottom-up policy approaches must be balanced or aligned.", "members": [ 20, 24, 26, 31 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1373/c479", "osft-doc-1373/c473", "osft-doc-1373/c477", "osft-doc-1373/c478" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" } ], "outliers": [ { "rep": "open-science-source-24-c2/c87", "text": "The template's contents may include the author's ORCID ID.", "why": "Specific repository-template metadata field (ORCID), unrelated to diversity theme" }, { "rep": "open-science-source-24-c2/c104", "text": "Agencies may instruct repositories to add template language Option 1 or Option 2, at their discretion.", "why": "Procedural instruction about template language options for agencies" }, { "rep": "open-science-source-24-c2/c89", "text": "The template may alternatively be attached by the repository manager or a publisher when the publisher agrees to deposit public access copies in an agency-designated repository.", "why": "Administrative detail on who attaches the deposit template" }, { "rep": "open-science-source-24-c2/c85", "text": "The template's contents may include information about the copyright license.", "why": "Specific metadata field (copyright license) for templates" }, { "rep": "open-science-source-24-c2/c86", "text": "The template's contents may include the funding agreement number.", "why": "Specific metadata field (funding agreement number) for templates" }, { "rep": "open-science-source-24-c2/c103", "text": "When policy-covered submissions do not contain the language specified in the template, repositories should add the language before the works are made public.", "why": "Procedural rule for repositories adding template language" } ], "clusterStats": { "size": 34, "claims": 99, "documents": 27, "meanIntraCos": 0.813, "minIntraCos": 0.742 }, "starIds": [ "open-science-source-03/c142", "osft-doc-1459/c312", "osft-doc-1327/c691", "open-science-source-03/c259", "osft-doc-1327/c60", "osft-doc-1327/c416", "osft-doc-1373/c259", "osft-doc-1459/c315", "osft-doc-1327/c1083", "osft-doc-1373/c238", "osft-doc-1373/c273", "osft-doc-1373/c473", "osft-doc-1373/c477", "osft-doc-1373/c479", "open-science-source-18/c167", "osft-doc-1373/c282", "osft-doc-1327/c731", "osft-doc-1327/c415", "open-science-source-06/c250", "open-science-source-24-c2/c103", "open-science-source-24-c2/c104", "open-science-source-24-c2/c85", "open-science-source-24-c2/c86", "open-science-source-24-c2/c87", "open-science-source-24-c2/c89", "open-science-source-36/c181", "open-science-source-37-c1/c120", "open-science-source-41/c423", "open-science-source-50/c72", "osft-doc-0050/c159", "osft-doc-0050/c171", "osft-doc-0150/c3", "osft-doc-1373/c478", "osft-doc-1507/c145" ], "clusterMemberOrder": [ "osft-doc-1327/c416", "osft-doc-1327/c691", "osft-doc-1327/c731", "open-science-source-03/c259", "osft-doc-1327/c415", "osft-doc-0150/c3", "osft-doc-1373/c259", "open-science-source-37-c1/c120", "osft-doc-1327/c60", "osft-doc-1459/c312", "open-science-source-03/c142", "open-science-source-06/c250", "open-science-source-18/c167", "osft-doc-0050/c171", "osft-doc-0050/c159", "osft-doc-1327/c1083", "open-science-source-36/c181", "open-science-source-50/c72", "osft-doc-1373/c282", "osft-doc-1459/c315", "osft-doc-1373/c479", "osft-doc-1373/c238", "osft-doc-1507/c145", "osft-doc-1373/c273", "osft-doc-1373/c473", "open-science-source-41/c423", "osft-doc-1373/c477", "open-science-source-24-c2/c87", "open-science-source-24-c2/c104", "open-science-source-24-c2/c89", "open-science-source-24-c2/c85", "osft-doc-1373/c478", "open-science-source-24-c2/c86", "open-science-source-24-c2/c103" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 34, "claims": 99, "documents": 27 } }, { "id": "bu-030", "kind": "mixed", "name": "Open scholarly infrastructure, policy, and diamond open access are expanding through trustworthy, community-driven mechanisms", "definition": "This cluster gathers disparate factual and definitional claims about the open-science ecosystem: what counts as a trustworthy 'open scholarly infrastructure' (assurances of openness, accountability, reliability, transparency, stability, financial sustainability per POSI), the community-owned/governed nature and growth of diamond open access, and the expansion of open-science policy and infrastructure (EU Horizon 2020, UNESCO Recommendation, national monitoring efforts, PIDs, and services like SciELO, AJOL, and Google Scholar). It also includes general observations about the proliferation and positive impact of open-scholarship charters and declarations. A new position belongs here if it states a specific fact or definition about an infrastructure, policy instrument, or business model within open science; it does NOT belong if it argues a normative stance on who should pay for or control open access (e.g., APC debates), or addresses licensing/copyright specifics, peer review practices, or data-sharing mandates, which belong to other clusters.", "coherence": "low", "subpositions": [ { "statement": "Open scholarly infrastructures must give trustworthy assurances of openness and reliability.", "members": [ 0, 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 16 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-05/c95", "open-science-source-05/c96", "open-science-source-05/c99", "open-science-source-05/c98", "open-science-source-05/c97", "open-science-source-05/c100", "open-science-source-38/c434", "open-science-source-05/c88" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Diamond open access is a community-owned, community-governed, people-sustained model.", "members": [ 12, 14, 17, 29, 31 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-10/c17", "open-science-source-10/c59", "open-science-source-10/c3", "open-science-source-11/c5", "open-science-source-37-c1/c82" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "EU and UNESCO policies have made open science a major priority.", "members": [ 9, 10, 13, 15, 18, 22, 23, 26, 27 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0951/c32", "osft-doc-0951/c33", "osft-doc-1373/c517", "osft-doc-1373/c518", "osft-doc-1373/c505", "osft-doc-0268/c15", "open-science-source-37-c1/c191", "osft-doc-0002/c1", "osft-doc-1373/c506" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Specific infrastructure services and platforms demonstrate open scholarship's practical value.", "members": [ 4, 6, 8, 21, 24, 25, 28, 32, 33 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1373/c367", "osft-doc-1373/c366", "osft-doc-1373/c417", "open-science-source-24-c1/c86", "osft-doc-0836/c90", "open-science-source-37-c1/c83", "osft-doc-0504/c50", "osft-doc-1373/c482", "osft-doc-1373/c483" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Open scholarship declarations and charters express broadly consistent, positive goals.", "members": [ 19, 20, 30 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1459/c240", "osft-doc-1373/c472", "osft-doc-1373/c465" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" } ], "outliers": [ { "rep": "osft-doc-1373/c528", "text": "The hegemony of English often works to further empower Global North countries in conversations about Open Scholarship.", "why": "critical claim about English-language hegemony disrupts the otherwise affirmative tone" }, { "rep": "osft-doc-0504/c50", "text": "The Open Society Institute's commitment and resources are substantial.", "why": "isolated factoid about a single funder's resources, unconnected to infrastructure or policy themes" } ], "clusterStats": { "size": 35, "claims": 78, "documents": 26, "meanIntraCos": 0.816, "minIntraCos": 0.749 }, "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1373/c465", "osft-doc-1373/c367", "open-science-source-37-c1/c82", "osft-doc-1373/c505", "osft-doc-1373/c517", "osft-doc-1373/c528", "open-science-source-05/c100", "open-science-source-05/c88", "open-science-source-05/c95", "open-science-source-05/c96", "open-science-source-05/c97", "open-science-source-05/c98", "open-science-source-05/c99", "open-science-source-10/c17", "open-science-source-10/c3", "open-science-source-10/c59", "open-science-source-11/c5", "open-science-source-24-c1/c86", "open-science-source-37-c1/c191", "open-science-source-37-c1/c83", "open-science-source-38/c434", "osft-doc-0002/c1", "osft-doc-0268/c15", "osft-doc-0504/c50", "osft-doc-0836/c90", "osft-doc-0951/c32", "osft-doc-0951/c33", "osft-doc-1373/c366", "osft-doc-1373/c417", "osft-doc-1373/c472", "osft-doc-1373/c482", "osft-doc-1373/c483", "osft-doc-1373/c506", "osft-doc-1373/c518", "osft-doc-1459/c240" ], "clusterMemberOrder": [ "open-science-source-05/c95", "open-science-source-05/c96", "open-science-source-05/c99", "open-science-source-05/c98", "osft-doc-1373/c367", "open-science-source-05/c97", "osft-doc-1373/c366", "open-science-source-05/c100", "osft-doc-1373/c417", "osft-doc-0951/c32", "osft-doc-0951/c33", "open-science-source-38/c434", "open-science-source-10/c17", "osft-doc-1373/c517", "open-science-source-10/c59", "osft-doc-1373/c518", "open-science-source-05/c88", "open-science-source-10/c3", "osft-doc-1373/c505", "osft-doc-1459/c240", "osft-doc-1373/c472", "open-science-source-24-c1/c86", "osft-doc-0268/c15", "open-science-source-37-c1/c191", "osft-doc-0836/c90", "open-science-source-37-c1/c83", "osft-doc-0002/c1", "osft-doc-1373/c506", "osft-doc-0504/c50", "open-science-source-11/c5", "osft-doc-1373/c465", "open-science-source-37-c1/c82", "osft-doc-1373/c482", "osft-doc-1373/c483", "osft-doc-1373/c528" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 35, "claims": 78, "documents": 26 } }, { "id": "bu-031", "kind": "mixed", "name": "Research information should be open by default, closed only when privacy, ethics, or law require it", "definition": "Members center on the principle that research data, process, and other outputs should be \"as open as possible, as closed as necessary,\" with privacy protection, ethical obligations, and data-protection law cited as the recurring legitimate reasons to withhold or aggregate information. A secondary strand notes that this balance does not require researchers to be open activists and that the community can still monitor and reward open science even while relying on some closed data. A new position belongs here if it addresses when and why research information should be kept closed versus opened, referencing privacy, ethics, legal constraints, or the open/closed trade-off itself. It does NOT belong if it instead describes access barriers created by publishing business models (paywalls, subscriptions, embargoes) or defines what counts as \"publishing\" — those are about structural restrictions on already-produced outputs rather than principled decisions to close data.", "coherence": "medium", "subpositions": [ { "statement": "Research data, information, and process should be open by default, closed only as necessary.", "members": [ 0, 1, 2, 4 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-05/c15", "osft-doc-0971/c26", "open-science-source-15-c1/c15", "osft-doc-1373/c344" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Privacy, ethics, and data-protection law justify withholding or restricting research information.", "members": [ 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-05/c76", "osft-doc-1459/c598", "open-science-source-05/c75", "osft-doc-1646/c21", "open-science-source-09/c64", "open-science-source-05/c77" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Openness need not mean activism; closed data can still support open science.", "members": [ 10, 11 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-05/c10", "osft-doc-1373/c569" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" } ], "outliers": [ { "rep": "open-science-source-34/c7", "text": "The primary limitation of the 2013 Memorandum is the optional 12-month embargo from public access of any publication resulting from federally funded research.", "why": "About a specific federal policy's embargo provision, not the open/closed principle." }, { "rep": "open-science-source-19/c2", "text": "Articles reporting on federally funded research are not widely available to the public.", "why": "Describes public access outcomes, not a rationale for closing information." }, { "rep": "open-science-source-05/c83", "text": "Publishing includes cases where the audience is limited, for instance where access is limited to subscribers.", "why": "Definitional boundary of 'publishing,' unrelated to privacy/legal closure reasons." }, { "rep": "open-science-source-36/c242", "text": "Subscription journal licenses may limit the right to read a scholarly publication to subscribers only.", "why": "Describes subscription license mechanics, not principled openness limits." }, { "rep": "open-science-source-21/c16", "text": "Paywalls at subscription-based journals prevent citizens, patients, clinicians, policymakers, and scholars at institutions with limited resources from engaging with research.", "why": "Critiques paywalls as access barriers, a structural issue distinct from privacy/ethics-based closure." }, { "rep": "open-science-source-05/c84", "text": "Publishing does not include private and confidential reports or other documents that are not intended for general circulation.", "why": "Definitional exclusion of confidential documents from 'publishing,' not about the open/closed trade-off." } ], "clusterStats": { "size": 18, "claims": 49, "documents": 24, "meanIntraCos": 0.834, "minIntraCos": 0.759 }, "starIds": [ "open-science-source-09/c64", "osft-doc-1459/c598", "open-science-source-21/c16", "osft-doc-0971/c26", "osft-doc-1646/c21", "open-science-source-19/c2", "open-science-source-36/c242", "open-science-source-05/c10", "open-science-source-05/c15", "open-science-source-05/c75", "open-science-source-05/c76", "open-science-source-05/c77", "open-science-source-05/c83", "open-science-source-05/c84", "open-science-source-15-c1/c15", "open-science-source-34/c7", "osft-doc-1373/c344", "osft-doc-1373/c569" ], "clusterMemberOrder": [ "open-science-source-05/c15", "osft-doc-0971/c26", "open-science-source-15-c1/c15", "open-science-source-05/c76", "osft-doc-1373/c344", "osft-doc-1459/c598", "open-science-source-05/c75", "osft-doc-1646/c21", "open-science-source-09/c64", "open-science-source-05/c77", "open-science-source-05/c10", "osft-doc-1373/c569", "open-science-source-34/c7", "open-science-source-19/c2", "open-science-source-05/c83", "open-science-source-36/c242", "open-science-source-21/c16", "open-science-source-05/c84" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 18, "claims": 49, "documents": 24 } }, { "id": "bu-032", "kind": "mixed", "name": "Open-science organisations must adapt, be accountable, and empower community and Indigenous self-determination", "definition": "This cluster bundles several distinct claims about how open-science organisations, infrastructures, and data ecosystems should relate to the communities they serve. One thread holds that organisations and services must remain able to adapt, be periodically reviewed for continued relevance, and — if no longer needed — wind down or transition to community governance responsibly and in consultation with the community. A second thread holds that community engagement, trust, cohesion, and cultural/policy change (including incentives) are what drive successful open initiatives. A third thread, narrower and more specific, holds that data ecosystems must be designed so Indigenous Peoples and nations can derive benefit and exercise self-determination (echoing CARE-type principles). A new position belongs here if it concerns organisational sustainability/governance transitions, community-driven cultural change in open science, or Indigenous data governance; it would NOT belong if it concerns technical data standards, funding mechanisms, or specific open-access/open-data policies unrelated to organisational or community governance.", "coherence": "low", "subpositions": [ { "statement": "Organisations and infrastructure must adapt, be reviewed, and wind down responsibly if unneeded.", "members": [ 0, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-09/c15", "open-science-source-09/c22", "osft-doc-0836/c82", "osft-doc-0836/c103", "osft-doc-0020/c43", "open-science-source-09/c16", "osft-doc-0836/c51" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Community support, trust, and cultural change drive successful open-science initiatives.", "members": [ 1, 3, 4, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1327/c208", "osft-doc-1373/c20", "osft-doc-0836/c99", "open-science-source-54-c2/c68", "osft-doc-0441/c173", "osft-doc-1373/c247", "osft-doc-1373/c445", "osft-doc-1673/c351" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Data ecosystems must be designed to enable Indigenous self-determination and benefit.", "members": [ 2, 5, 10, 11 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-30/c169", "open-science-source-30/c78", "open-science-source-26/c14", "open-science-source-26/c18" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" } ], "outliers": [ { "rep": "open-science-source-30/c172", "text": "Data enable better engagement between citizens, institutions, and governments to improve decision-making.", "why": "Concerns general citizen-government data engagement, not organisational adaptability, community culture, or Indigenous governance." } ], "clusterStats": { "size": 20, "claims": 47, "documents": 23, "meanIntraCos": 0.812, "minIntraCos": 0.757 }, "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0020/c43", "open-science-source-26/c18", "osft-doc-0836/c51", "open-science-source-26/c14", "open-science-source-30/c169", "osft-doc-1673/c351", "open-science-source-09/c22", "open-science-source-30/c78", "open-science-source-09/c15", "open-science-source-09/c16", "open-science-source-30/c172", "open-science-source-54-c2/c68", "osft-doc-0441/c173", "osft-doc-0836/c103", "osft-doc-0836/c82", "osft-doc-0836/c99", "osft-doc-1327/c208", "osft-doc-1373/c20", "osft-doc-1373/c247", "osft-doc-1373/c445" ], "clusterMemberOrder": [ "open-science-source-09/c15", "osft-doc-1327/c208", "open-science-source-30/c169", "osft-doc-1373/c20", "osft-doc-0836/c99", "open-science-source-30/c78", "open-science-source-09/c22", "osft-doc-0836/c82", "osft-doc-0836/c103", "osft-doc-0020/c43", "open-science-source-26/c14", "open-science-source-26/c18", "open-science-source-09/c16", "osft-doc-0836/c51", "open-science-source-54-c2/c68", "osft-doc-0441/c173", "open-science-source-30/c172", "osft-doc-1373/c247", "osft-doc-1373/c445", "osft-doc-1673/c351" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 20, "claims": 47, "documents": 23 } }, { "id": "bu-033", "kind": "mixed", "name": "High costs and restrictive licensing create barriers to scholarly communication and access", "definition": "Members claim that specific costs in the scholarly ecosystem — rising APCs and BPCs, library subscriptions, certificates, embargo-compliance reconciliation, and data curation — are high, rising, or hard to determine, straining budgets and blocking access. A related sub-set claims that restrictive licensing, one-off license proliferation, complex material transfer agreements, and industry-specific (e.g. pharmaceutical) compliance rules add legal and procedural barriers that slow research and open sharing, and that coordinated multi-stakeholder action is needed to overcome this. A new position belongs here if it names a specific monetary cost or a specific legal/procedural restriction (license terms, embargoes, MTAs, compliance rules) that impedes scholarly communication, publishing, or data/material sharing. It does NOT belong if the cost or barrier is outside scholarly/research communication entirely (e.g. general infrastructure or climate-transition costs) or if it merely asserts a normative principle unrelated to cost/licensing barriers.", "coherence": "medium", "subpositions": [ { "statement": "Article processing charges and subscription prices are high and rising rapidly.", "members": [ 0, 1, 2, 3, 5, 9, 14 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-04/c28", "osft-doc-0504/c36", "open-science-source-24-c1/c35", "osft-doc-1449/c465", "osft-doc-1373/c601", "open-science-source-24-c1/c34", "open-science-source-20/c6" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Embargoes, certificates, and compliance systems are costly and time-consuming.", "members": [ 4, 7, 8 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1373/c597", "osft-doc-1373/c596", "osft-doc-1507/c25" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Restrictive licensing and material transfer agreements slow scientific progress.", "members": [ 6, 10, 16 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1373/c591", "osft-doc-1673/c225", "osft-doc-1373/c334" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Data costs vary by type and discipline, adding further expense.", "members": [ 13 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-24-c7/c21" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Industry-specific rules create extra barriers to preprints and open practices.", "members": [ 11, 12 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1373/c276", "osft-doc-1373/c279" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Coordinated action across many stakeholders is needed to achieve real change.", "members": [ 17 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0963/c45" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" } ], "outliers": [ { "rep": "osft-doc-0825/c14", "text": "The investment required for restructuring and rebuilding cities, mines, farms, industries, and transport systems to create a zero-carbon emission world is prohibitive for many nations.", "why": "Concerns cost of zero-carbon infrastructure transition, unrelated to scholarly communication" }, { "rep": "osft-doc-0963/c45", "text": "Significant change is difficult to achieve within and across domains unless many stakeholders adopt similar policies and practices in a coordinated way.", "why": "About need for coordinated stakeholder policy change generally, not a cost or licensing barrier itself" } ], "clusterStats": { "size": 18, "claims": 43, "documents": 22, "meanIntraCos": 0.806, "minIntraCos": 0.741 }, "starIds": [ "open-science-source-24-c1/c34", "osft-doc-1373/c591", "osft-doc-1373/c596", "osft-doc-1449/c465", "osft-doc-1673/c225", "open-science-source-24-c1/c35", "osft-doc-1373/c334", "osft-doc-1373/c597", "open-science-source-04/c28", "open-science-source-20/c6", "open-science-source-24-c7/c21", "osft-doc-0504/c36", "osft-doc-0825/c14", "osft-doc-0963/c45", "osft-doc-1373/c276", "osft-doc-1373/c279", "osft-doc-1373/c601", "osft-doc-1507/c25" ], "clusterMemberOrder": [ "open-science-source-04/c28", "osft-doc-0504/c36", "open-science-source-24-c1/c35", "osft-doc-1449/c465", "osft-doc-1373/c597", "osft-doc-1373/c601", "osft-doc-1373/c591", "osft-doc-1373/c596", "osft-doc-1507/c25", "open-science-source-24-c1/c34", "osft-doc-1673/c225", "osft-doc-1373/c276", "osft-doc-1373/c279", "open-science-source-24-c7/c21", "open-science-source-20/c6", "osft-doc-0825/c14", "osft-doc-1373/c334", "osft-doc-0963/c45" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 18, "claims": 43, "documents": 22 } }, { "id": "bu-034", "kind": "mixed", "name": "Infrastructure organisations should diversify revenue and hold financial reserves for sustainability and orderly wind-down.", "definition": "Members describe how infrastructure organisations and services should fund their day-to-day operations and survive shocks: by diversifying revenue beyond subscriptions or APCs (value-added services, API service-level agreements, consulting, membership fees, alternative models like the Open Library of Humanities) and by adopting explicit reserve or contingency-fund policies covering purpose, minimum/maximum levels, governance, and orderly wind-down or transition. A separate, smaller strand within the cluster instead concerns funders financing research and interventions into Open Scholarship adoption and behavior-change determinants, which is about funding academic research rather than organisational financial sustainability. A new position belongs here if it concerns revenue models, reserves, or wind-down planning for an infrastructure organisation or service; it does not belong if it concerns funding of scholarly research programs, licensing policy, or unrelated Open Scholarship promotion activities.", "coherence": "medium", "subpositions": [ { "statement": "Revenue should be diversified beyond subscriptions via new business models.", "members": [ 2, 5, 7, 8, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 23 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-18/c576", "open-science-source-09/c32", "osft-doc-1373/c561", "osft-doc-1673/c309", "open-science-source-09/c34", "open-science-source-09/c33", "open-science-source-09/c30", "open-science-source-02/c149", "osft-doc-1287/c47", "osft-doc-1373/c500", "osft-doc-0836/c60", "osft-doc-1673/c189" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Organisations should hold financial reserves/contingency funds for wind-down or transition.", "members": [ 0, 1, 4, 9, 19, 20, 22, 24, 26, 27 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-09/c24", "osft-doc-0020/c44", "open-science-source-09/c25", "osft-doc-0836/c53", "osft-doc-0846/c53", "open-science-source-09/c29", "open-science-source-09/c26", "open-science-source-09/c28", "open-science-source-09/c27", "open-science-source-09/c61" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Funders should finance research into Open Scholarship adoption and determinants.", "members": [ 3, 6, 10, 11, 13 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1459/c202", "osft-doc-1373/c145", "osft-doc-1373/c147", "osft-doc-1459/c201", "osft-doc-1373/c146" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" } ], "outliers": [ { "rep": "osft-doc-1373/c132", "text": "Those outside of the UK may extend the UK Scholarly Communications License, or relevant variations of it, towards other regional funding and licensing strategies.", "why": "Concerns extending a UK licensing framework abroad, not organisational funding or reserves." } ], "clusterStats": { "size": 28, "claims": 124, "documents": 22, "meanIntraCos": 0.818, "minIntraCos": 0.755 }, "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1287/c47", "open-science-source-09/c30", "open-science-source-09/c32", "open-science-source-09/c33", "open-science-source-09/c34", "osft-doc-0836/c60", "open-science-source-09/c61", "osft-doc-0836/c53", "open-science-source-09/c24", "osft-doc-1673/c309", "osft-doc-1673/c189", "open-science-source-09/c25", "open-science-source-18/c576", "osft-doc-1373/c132", "osft-doc-0020/c44", "osft-doc-0846/c53", "osft-doc-1373/c500", "open-science-source-02/c149", "open-science-source-09/c26", "open-science-source-09/c27", "open-science-source-09/c28", "open-science-source-09/c29", "osft-doc-1373/c145", "osft-doc-1373/c146", "osft-doc-1373/c147", "osft-doc-1373/c561", "osft-doc-1459/c201", "osft-doc-1459/c202" ], "clusterMemberOrder": [ "open-science-source-09/c24", "osft-doc-0020/c44", "open-science-source-18/c576", "osft-doc-1459/c202", "open-science-source-09/c25", "open-science-source-09/c32", "osft-doc-1373/c145", "osft-doc-1373/c561", "osft-doc-1673/c309", "osft-doc-0836/c53", "osft-doc-1373/c147", "osft-doc-1459/c201", "open-science-source-09/c34", "osft-doc-1373/c146", "open-science-source-09/c33", "open-science-source-09/c30", "open-science-source-02/c149", "osft-doc-1287/c47", "osft-doc-1373/c500", "osft-doc-0846/c53", "open-science-source-09/c29", "osft-doc-0836/c60", "open-science-source-09/c26", "osft-doc-1673/c189", "open-science-source-09/c28", "osft-doc-1373/c132", "open-science-source-09/c27", "open-science-source-09/c61" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 28, "claims": 124, "documents": 22 } }, { "id": "bu-035", "kind": "mixed", "name": "Libraries and universities should actively track and support an open, equitable, public-good scholarly ecosystem", "definition": "Members claim that research libraries should systematically collect data on scholarly activity (venues, APC/BPC spend, subscription costs, downloads, editorial/peer-review labor) and that libraries and universities play active, distinctive roles in supporting open access, data sharing, public-access infrastructure, and equitable participation in scholarship. A second, looser thread asserts that universities and scholarship exist for the public good and are sustained by a vast, committed global community of actors. A new position belongs here if it concerns what libraries/universities should monitor or do to advance open scholarship, or asserts their broader public mission; it does NOT belong if it specifies particular funding mechanisms, licensing terms, funder mandates, or technical/legal policy details unrelated to institutional roles or data-tracking.", "coherence": "low", "subpositions": [ { "statement": "Libraries should collect metrics on publishing venues, costs, usage, and labor.", "members": [ 0, 1, 5, 6, 7, 8 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1459/c103", "osft-doc-1373/c105", "osft-doc-1373/c108", "osft-doc-1373/c107", "osft-doc-1373/c109", "osft-doc-1373/c106" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Libraries should actively support and collaborate on open-access infrastructure and services.", "members": [ 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 12, 16, 24 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1327/c302", "osft-doc-1327/c296", "open-science-source-24-c5/c33", "open-science-source-06/c149", "open-science-source-24-c5/c34", "open-science-source-54-c1/c30", "osft-doc-1373/c81", "osft-doc-1373/c562" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Library subscription revenue helps fund scholarly societies' operations.", "members": [ 11 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-19/c42" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Universities and scholarship exist to serve society, not just academics.", "members": [ 14, 17, 18, 19 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1398/c40", "osft-doc-1398/c42", "osft-doc-1398/c41", "osft-doc-0825/c38" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "A vast, committed global community of experts sustains scholarly communication.", "members": [ 13, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1253/c58", "osft-doc-1373/c437", "osft-doc-1459/c491", "osft-doc-1373/c587", "osft-doc-0441/c72", "open-science-source-37-c1/c4" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" } ], "outliers": [ { "rep": "osft-doc-1373/c400", "text": "Public spaces and infrastructure such as public libraries, museums, art galleries, and schools should be leveraged.", "why": "About leveraging public spaces like museums/schools, not libraries or universities." }, { "rep": "osft-doc-0441/c72", "text": "Scholarship is a system of methods of inquiry and knowledge production.", "why": "Abstract definitional claim about what scholarship is, unrelated to library/university roles." }, { "rep": "open-science-source-37-c1/c4", "text": "In this work programme, the term \"knowledge institutions\" also includes universities of applied sciences.", "why": "A terminological scoping note ('knowledge institutions'), not a substantive claim." }, { "rep": "osft-doc-1459/c491", "text": "The global scholarly community is vast, covering every continent.", "why": "Generic geographic fact about scholarly community, not a library/university role claim." } ], "clusterStats": { "size": 26, "claims": 63, "documents": 22, "meanIntraCos": 0.819, "minIntraCos": 0.755 }, "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1373/c108", "open-science-source-24-c5/c33", "osft-doc-0825/c38", "osft-doc-1373/c105", "osft-doc-1373/c106", "osft-doc-1373/c107", "osft-doc-1373/c109", "osft-doc-1373/c437", "osft-doc-1373/c587", "osft-doc-1398/c40", "open-science-source-06/c149", "osft-doc-1398/c41", "osft-doc-1398/c42", "open-science-source-19/c42", "open-science-source-24-c5/c34", "open-science-source-37-c1/c4", "open-science-source-54-c1/c30", "osft-doc-0441/c72", "osft-doc-1253/c58", "osft-doc-1327/c296", "osft-doc-1327/c302", "osft-doc-1373/c400", "osft-doc-1373/c562", "osft-doc-1373/c81", "osft-doc-1459/c103", "osft-doc-1459/c491" ], "clusterMemberOrder": [ "osft-doc-1459/c103", "osft-doc-1373/c105", "osft-doc-1327/c302", "osft-doc-1327/c296", "open-science-source-24-c5/c33", "osft-doc-1373/c108", "osft-doc-1373/c107", "osft-doc-1373/c109", "osft-doc-1373/c106", "open-science-source-06/c149", "open-science-source-24-c5/c34", "open-science-source-19/c42", "open-science-source-54-c1/c30", "osft-doc-1253/c58", "osft-doc-1398/c40", "osft-doc-1373/c400", "osft-doc-1373/c81", "osft-doc-1398/c42", "osft-doc-1398/c41", "osft-doc-0825/c38", "osft-doc-1373/c437", "osft-doc-1459/c491", "osft-doc-1373/c587", "osft-doc-0441/c72", "osft-doc-1373/c562", "open-science-source-37-c1/c4" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 26, "claims": 63, "documents": 22 } }, { "id": "bu-036", "kind": "mixed", "name": "Open data sharing faces unresolved technical, rights, and governance barriers, plus risks of capture.", "definition": "Members describe practical obstacles to sharing research data — unstandardized access conditions, unresolved metadata questions, unclear funding for data management, unsettled or inconsistent data rights (ownership, personal data, CARE, Nagoya Protocol) — that make sharing complex and often keep it a private activity. A second strand warns that open data infrastructure, databases, or algorithms could be captured by governments (surveillance) or companies (commercial dominance, co-optation of the movement), with technical measures like federation proposed as safeguards. A position belongs here if it names a specific unresolved practical/legal condition for data sharing or a specific risk of powerful actors controlling open data; it does NOT belong if it simply defines open science practices or states a general benefit of data sharing without naming an obstacle or capture risk.", "coherence": "medium", "subpositions": [ { "statement": "Data access, rights, and funding for sharing lack standardization or agreement.", "members": [ 0, 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-37-c2/c34", "osft-doc-1507/c140", "open-science-source-26/c87", "open-science-source-26/c115", "open-science-source-37-c2/c44", "osft-doc-1459/c636", "open-science-source-26/c88", "open-science-source-26/c72" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Sharing data is complex, often private, yet imperfect sharing beats none.", "members": [ 2, 4, 9, 12 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1449/c224", "open-science-source-12/c39", "osft-doc-1412/c64", "open-science-source-50/c52" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Governments or companies could capture open data infrastructure for their own interests.", "members": [ 8, 14, 15, 16 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1373/c574", "open-science-source-42/c696", "osft-doc-1373/c536", "osft-doc-0836/c98" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" } ], "outliers": [ { "rep": "osft-doc-1612/c7", "text": "OS practices include the sharing of data.", "why": "defines open science as including data sharing rather than naming a barrier or risk" } ], "clusterStats": { "size": 17, "claims": 35, "documents": 21, "meanIntraCos": 0.812, "minIntraCos": 0.749 }, "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1449/c224", "open-science-source-12/c39", "open-science-source-26/c115", "open-science-source-26/c72", "open-science-source-26/c87", "open-science-source-26/c88", "open-science-source-37-c2/c34", "open-science-source-37-c2/c44", "open-science-source-42/c696", "open-science-source-50/c52", "osft-doc-0836/c98", "osft-doc-1373/c536", "osft-doc-1373/c574", "osft-doc-1412/c64", "osft-doc-1459/c636", "osft-doc-1507/c140", "osft-doc-1612/c7" ], "clusterMemberOrder": [ "open-science-source-37-c2/c34", "osft-doc-1507/c140", "osft-doc-1449/c224", "open-science-source-26/c87", "open-science-source-12/c39", "open-science-source-26/c115", "open-science-source-37-c2/c44", "osft-doc-1459/c636", "osft-doc-1373/c574", "osft-doc-1412/c64", "open-science-source-26/c88", "open-science-source-26/c72", "open-science-source-50/c52", "osft-doc-1612/c7", "open-science-source-42/c696", "osft-doc-1373/c536", "osft-doc-0836/c98" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 17, "claims": 35, "documents": 21 } }, { "id": "bu-037", "kind": "mixed", "name": "Training and mentoring in open, reproducible research practices should be embedded throughout education and careers", "definition": "Members claim that education and mentoring are a key lever for spreading open, reproducible, and rigorous research practices, and describe specific initiatives (notably FORRT, but also CREP, The Carpentries, and RDA's Early Career group) that build community infrastructure, curricula, and mentorship for students and early-career researchers around open scholarship, replication, data science, and AI literacy. Normative members call on universities, institutions, and Member States to formalize open-science skills training in curricula and to support mentorship for underprivileged or underrepresented trainees. This does NOT include positions about publication incentives, funding policy, data-sharing infrastructure, or peer-review mechanisms that are unrelated to teaching or mentoring, even if they mention open science broadly.", "coherence": "medium", "subpositions": [ { "statement": "FORRT is community-driven infrastructure for educators advancing open, reproducible teaching.", "members": [ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28, 31, 40, 41, 44, 45, 50, 52, 56, 57, 58, 59, 62, 64, 66, 68, 69, 74 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0441/c329", "osft-doc-0441/c297", "osft-doc-0441/c11", "osft-doc-0441/c325", "osft-doc-0441/c10", "osft-doc-0441/c308", "osft-doc-0441/c51", "osft-doc-0441/c307", "osft-doc-0441/c13", "osft-doc-0441/c12", "osft-doc-0441/c324", "osft-doc-0441/c287", "osft-doc-0441/c338", "osft-doc-0441/c16", "osft-doc-1878/c303", "osft-doc-0050/c102", "osft-doc-0441/c326", "osft-doc-0441/c294", "osft-doc-1878/c301", "osft-doc-0441/c330", "osft-doc-1878/c308", "osft-doc-0441/c305", "osft-doc-0441/c52", "osft-doc-0441/c292", "osft-doc-0441/c125", "osft-doc-0441/c293", "osft-doc-1878/c319", "osft-doc-0441/c288", "osft-doc-1878/c15", "osft-doc-0441/c314", "osft-doc-0441/c309", "osft-doc-0441/c282", "osft-doc-0441/c331", "osft-doc-0441/c306", "osft-doc-0441/c298", "osft-doc-0441/c147", "osft-doc-0441/c126" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Universities and institutions should formally integrate open-science skills training in curricula.", "members": [ 8, 18, 26, 35, 36, 37, 39, 46, 47, 53, 54, 55, 60, 65, 67, 72, 73 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1373/c200", "osft-doc-1373/c151", "osft-doc-1869/c256", "open-science-source-03/c225", "open-science-source-42/c98", "osft-doc-1373/c158", "osft-doc-1449/c315", "open-science-source-03/c227", "open-science-source-03/c229", "open-science-source-45/c46", "osft-doc-0441/c69", "osft-doc-0680/c21", "osft-doc-1373/c167", "open-science-source-45/c228", "osft-doc-1373/c159", "open-science-source-45/c281", "osft-doc-0441/c68" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Training students early increases adoption and normalizes open, reproducible practices.", "members": [ 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 29, 32, 33, 34, 38, 42, 43, 61, 70, 71 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0441/c247", "osft-doc-0441/c48", "osft-doc-0441/c71", "osft-doc-0441/c84", "osft-doc-1878/c81", "osft-doc-0441/c92", "osft-doc-0441/c248", "osft-doc-0050/c107", "osft-doc-0050/c114", "osft-doc-0050/c101", "osft-doc-0050/c116", "osft-doc-0441/c319", "osft-doc-0441/c323", "osft-doc-0441/c158", "osft-doc-0050/c106" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Specific external programs offer hands-on training in replication or data science.", "members": [ 27, 30, 48, 51 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0441/c141", "osft-doc-1373/c203", "osft-doc-0441/c140", "osft-doc-1373/c204" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Mentorship programs connect underprivileged or underrepresented early-career scholars to mentors.", "members": [ 40, 66, 68 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0441/c305", "osft-doc-0441/c306", "osft-doc-0441/c298" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" } ], "outliers": [ { "rep": "osft-doc-0441/c158", "text": "The current publication culture informs how students are taught and mentored.", "why": "Describes how publication culture shapes teaching, rather than asserting a training/mentoring position itself." } ], "clusterStats": { "size": 75, "claims": 176, "documents": 20, "meanIntraCos": 0.833, "minIntraCos": 0.752 }, "starIds": [ "open-science-source-03/c227", "osft-doc-1869/c256", "open-science-source-03/c225", "osft-doc-1373/c158", "osft-doc-0680/c21", "osft-doc-1878/c81", "open-science-source-45/c46", "osft-doc-1373/c200", "osft-doc-1373/c203", "osft-doc-1373/c204", "osft-doc-0441/c16", "open-science-source-37-c1/c51", "osft-doc-0441/c12", "osft-doc-0441/c282", "osft-doc-0441/c294", "osft-doc-1878/c15", "osft-doc-1878/c303", "osft-doc-1878/c319", "osft-doc-0441/c324", "osft-doc-0441/c10", "osft-doc-0441/c247", "osft-doc-0441/c51", "osft-doc-0441/c287", "osft-doc-0441/c308", "osft-doc-1878/c301", "osft-doc-1878/c308", "osft-doc-0441/c329", "osft-doc-0441/c84", "osft-doc-1449/c315", "osft-doc-0441/c326", "osft-doc-0441/c48", "osft-doc-0441/c325", "osft-doc-0441/c11", "open-science-source-03/c229", "open-science-source-42/c98", "open-science-source-45/c228", "open-science-source-45/c281", "osft-doc-0050/c101", "osft-doc-0050/c102", "osft-doc-0050/c106", "osft-doc-0050/c107", "osft-doc-0050/c114", "osft-doc-0050/c116", "osft-doc-0441/c125", "osft-doc-0441/c126", "osft-doc-0441/c13", "osft-doc-0441/c140", "osft-doc-0441/c141", "osft-doc-0441/c147", "osft-doc-0441/c158", "osft-doc-0441/c248", "osft-doc-0441/c288", "osft-doc-0441/c292", "osft-doc-0441/c293", "osft-doc-0441/c297", "osft-doc-0441/c298", "osft-doc-0441/c305", "osft-doc-0441/c306", "osft-doc-0441/c307", "osft-doc-0441/c309", "osft-doc-0441/c314", "osft-doc-0441/c319", "osft-doc-0441/c323", "osft-doc-0441/c330", "osft-doc-0441/c331", "osft-doc-0441/c338", "osft-doc-0441/c52", "osft-doc-0441/c68", "osft-doc-0441/c69", "osft-doc-0441/c71", "osft-doc-0441/c92", "osft-doc-0441/c93", "osft-doc-1373/c151", "osft-doc-1373/c159", "osft-doc-1373/c167" ], "clusterMemberOrder": [ "osft-doc-0441/c329", "osft-doc-0441/c297", "osft-doc-0441/c11", "osft-doc-0441/c325", "osft-doc-0441/c10", "osft-doc-0441/c308", "osft-doc-0441/c51", "osft-doc-0441/c307", "osft-doc-1373/c200", "osft-doc-0441/c13", "osft-doc-0441/c247", "osft-doc-0441/c12", "osft-doc-0441/c324", "osft-doc-0441/c287", "osft-doc-0441/c48", "osft-doc-0441/c71", "osft-doc-0441/c84", "osft-doc-1878/c81", "osft-doc-1373/c151", "osft-doc-0441/c338", "osft-doc-0441/c16", "osft-doc-1878/c303", "osft-doc-0050/c102", "osft-doc-0441/c326", "osft-doc-0441/c294", "osft-doc-1878/c301", "osft-doc-1869/c256", "osft-doc-0441/c141", "osft-doc-0441/c330", "osft-doc-0441/c92", "osft-doc-1373/c203", "osft-doc-1878/c308", "osft-doc-0441/c248", "osft-doc-0050/c107", "osft-doc-0050/c114", "open-science-source-03/c225", "open-science-source-42/c98", "osft-doc-1373/c158", "osft-doc-0050/c101", "osft-doc-1449/c315", "osft-doc-0441/c305", "osft-doc-0441/c52", "osft-doc-0050/c116", "osft-doc-0441/c319", "osft-doc-0441/c292", "osft-doc-0441/c125", "open-science-source-03/c227", "open-science-source-03/c229", "osft-doc-0441/c140", "osft-doc-0441/c93", "osft-doc-0441/c293", "osft-doc-1373/c204", "osft-doc-1878/c319", "open-science-source-45/c46", "osft-doc-0441/c69", "osft-doc-0680/c21", "osft-doc-0441/c288", "osft-doc-1878/c15", "osft-doc-0441/c314", "osft-doc-0441/c309", "osft-doc-1373/c167", "osft-doc-0441/c323", "osft-doc-0441/c282", "open-science-source-37-c1/c51", "osft-doc-0441/c331", "open-science-source-45/c228", "osft-doc-0441/c306", "osft-doc-1373/c159", "osft-doc-0441/c298", "osft-doc-0441/c147", "osft-doc-0441/c158", "osft-doc-0050/c106", "open-science-source-45/c281", "osft-doc-0441/c68", "osft-doc-0441/c126" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 75, "claims": 176, "documents": 20 } }, { "id": "bu-038", "kind": "mixed", "name": "Open infrastructure is fragile without diverse funding and forkable, community-controlled governance.", "definition": "Members claim, on one hand, that infrastructures are foundational, purpose-built systems shared by diverse communities and unnoticed until they fail; on the other, that grant-dependent funding makes infrastructure organisations fragile, distracted, and vulnerable to acquisition, and that resilience requires legal/technical forkability so a community can replicate or take control if governance drifts or is co-opted. It also names board-governed nonprofit membership as the typical business model and ORCID as a near-exemplar. Positions belong here if they concern what infrastructure fundamentally is, why its funding model is precarious, or how forkability/replication safeguards community control; they do NOT belong if they instead argue for specific policy mandates (e.g., APC waivers, licensing rules) unrelated to infrastructure's own operational sustainability or governance structure.", "coherence": "medium", "subpositions": [ { "statement": "Infrastructures are foundational, purpose-built systems shared by a community.", "members": [ 0, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 12, 15, 28, 30 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-05/c92", "open-science-source-09/c53", "osft-doc-0151/c45", "open-science-source-09/c57", "osft-doc-0730/c94", "open-science-source-05/c90", "open-science-source-05/c91", "osft-doc-0836/c17", "osft-doc-1287/c16", "osft-doc-1373/c384", "open-science-source-09/c58" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Grant dependency makes infrastructure organisations fragile and easily distracted.", "members": [ 1, 11, 13, 14, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 27 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1287/c48", "open-science-source-37-c2/c53", "osft-doc-0020/c40", "osft-doc-0151/c67", "osft-doc-0020/c39", "open-science-source-38/c22", "osft-doc-0050/c32", "osft-doc-0151/c66", "open-science-source-51/c2", "osft-doc-1373/c369" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Infrastructure must be forkable so communities can regain control.", "members": [ 8, 9, 16, 17, 20, 21, 25, 29, 31 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0151/c46", "osft-doc-0836/c64", "osft-doc-1287/c63", "osft-doc-0836/c65", "osft-doc-0836/c68", "osft-doc-0836/c61", "open-science-source-09/c11", "osft-doc-0836/c66", "osft-doc-0756/c36" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Board-governed nonprofit membership is the typical business model; ORCID exemplifies it.", "members": [ 26, 32 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0836/c80", "osft-doc-0836/c96" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" } ], "outliers": [ { "rep": "osft-doc-0836/c96", "text": "ORCID probably comes closest among existing infrastructure organisations to satisfying these principles.", "why": "Names a specific real-world organisation rather than a general claim about infrastructure." }, { "rep": "osft-doc-0836/c80", "text": "The most obvious business model for an infrastructure organisation is currently a board-governed, not-for-profit membership organisation.", "why": "Asserts a specific business-model preference distinct from the fragility/forkability themes." } ], "clusterStats": { "size": 33, "claims": 123, "documents": 20, "meanIntraCos": 0.826, "minIntraCos": 0.751 }, "starIds": [ "open-science-source-09/c57", "osft-doc-0020/c39", "osft-doc-0020/c40", "osft-doc-0151/c46", "osft-doc-0756/c36", "open-science-source-53/c20", "osft-doc-1373/c384", "open-science-source-09/c58", "open-science-source-37-c2/c53", "open-science-source-51/c2", "osft-doc-0730/c94", "open-science-source-09/c53", "osft-doc-0836/c61", "osft-doc-0836/c64", "osft-doc-0836/c65", "osft-doc-0836/c66", "osft-doc-0836/c68", "osft-doc-1373/c369", "osft-doc-0151/c67", "osft-doc-1287/c48", "osft-doc-0151/c66", "open-science-source-05/c90", "open-science-source-05/c91", "open-science-source-05/c92", "open-science-source-09/c11", "open-science-source-38/c22", "osft-doc-0050/c32", "osft-doc-0151/c45", "osft-doc-0836/c17", "osft-doc-0836/c80", "osft-doc-0836/c96", "osft-doc-1287/c16", "osft-doc-1287/c63" ], "clusterMemberOrder": [ "open-science-source-05/c92", "osft-doc-1287/c48", "open-science-source-53/c20", "open-science-source-09/c53", "osft-doc-0151/c45", "open-science-source-09/c57", "osft-doc-0730/c94", "open-science-source-05/c90", "osft-doc-0151/c46", "osft-doc-0836/c64", "open-science-source-05/c91", "open-science-source-37-c2/c53", "osft-doc-0836/c17", "osft-doc-0020/c40", "osft-doc-0151/c67", "osft-doc-1287/c16", "osft-doc-1287/c63", "osft-doc-0836/c65", "osft-doc-0020/c39", "open-science-source-38/c22", "osft-doc-0836/c68", "osft-doc-0836/c61", "osft-doc-0050/c32", "osft-doc-0151/c66", "open-science-source-51/c2", "open-science-source-09/c11", "osft-doc-0836/c80", "osft-doc-1373/c369", "osft-doc-1373/c384", "osft-doc-0836/c66", "open-science-source-09/c58", "osft-doc-0756/c36", "osft-doc-0836/c96" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 33, "claims": 123, "documents": 20 } }, { "id": "bu-039", "kind": "mixed", "name": "Certification, trust-building, access protocols, and AI safeguards ensure research infrastructure reliability.", "definition": "This cluster gathers several distinct mechanisms said to make research data infrastructure trustworthy and reliable: formal certification procedures (their benefits for quality, workflow, funder compliance, and third-party reuse), the components that constitute institutional trust (sustainability, governance, community control, insurance against failure), authentication/authorization protocols for data access, and safeguards for responsible AI use in scholarly communication. A new position belongs here if it describes a specific mechanism, standard, or component that establishes confidence, quality assurance, or accountability in a research data system or scholarly workflow. It would NOT belong if it concerns open-access publishing economics, licensing/copyright terms, data-sharing mandates, or FAIR principles unrelated to certification/trust/authentication/AI-safeguard mechanisms specifically.", "coherence": "low", "subpositions": [ { "statement": "Certification procedures deliver practical benefits like quality, compliance, and reuse.", "members": [ 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 20, 23, 25 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1507/c33", "osft-doc-1507/c26", "osft-doc-1507/c31", "osft-doc-1507/c30", "osft-doc-1507/c27", "osft-doc-1507/c34", "osft-doc-1507/c51", "osft-doc-1507/c32", "osft-doc-1507/c91", "osft-doc-1507/c70", "osft-doc-1507/c77", "osft-doc-1373/c323" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Trust is composed of specific pillars: sustainability, governance, control, insurance.", "members": [ 0, 2, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 17 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1507/c24", "osft-doc-0836/c44", "osft-doc-0836/c102", "osft-doc-0836/c19", "osft-doc-0836/c101", "osft-doc-0836/c41", "osft-doc-0836/c42", "open-science-source-10/c78", "osft-doc-1781/c100" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Data-access protocols should support authentication and authorization where needed.", "members": [ 18, 22 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0645/c90", "osft-doc-0731/c7" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Responsible AI use requires human oversight and integrity safeguards.", "members": [ 19, 21, 24 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-10/c108", "open-science-source-45/c285", "open-science-source-12/c64" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" } ], "outliers": [ { "rep": "osft-doc-1373/c323", "text": "The 'weak licensing - strong certification' approach to patent management is especially easy to apply in medicine, where therapeutic devices or compounds are weakly licensed in terms of patents but the requirements for entering the market are set high by the regulator.", "why": "About patent licensing strategy in medicine, unrelated to research-data trust/certification." }, { "rep": "osft-doc-1507/c70", "text": "ISO 16919 relies heavily on ISO/IEC 17021, a standard for auditing and certification of general types of management systems.", "why": "Narrow technical detail about one ISO standard relying on another, not a general claim." } ], "clusterStats": { "size": 26, "claims": 64, "documents": 20, "meanIntraCos": 0.807, "minIntraCos": 0.747 }, "starIds": [ "open-science-source-12/c64", "osft-doc-1781/c100", "open-science-source-45/c285", "open-science-source-10/c78", "osft-doc-0645/c90", "osft-doc-0836/c41", "osft-doc-1373/c323", "osft-doc-0836/c101", "osft-doc-0836/c19", "open-science-source-10/c108", "osft-doc-0731/c7", "osft-doc-0836/c102", "osft-doc-0836/c42", "osft-doc-0836/c44", "osft-doc-1507/c24", "osft-doc-1507/c26", "osft-doc-1507/c27", "osft-doc-1507/c30", "osft-doc-1507/c31", "osft-doc-1507/c32", "osft-doc-1507/c33", "osft-doc-1507/c34", "osft-doc-1507/c51", "osft-doc-1507/c70", "osft-doc-1507/c77", "osft-doc-1507/c91" ], "clusterMemberOrder": [ "osft-doc-1507/c24", "osft-doc-1507/c33", "osft-doc-0836/c44", "osft-doc-1507/c26", "osft-doc-1507/c31", "osft-doc-1507/c30", "osft-doc-0836/c102", "osft-doc-0836/c19", "osft-doc-0836/c101", "osft-doc-1507/c27", "osft-doc-1507/c34", "osft-doc-1507/c51", "osft-doc-0836/c41", "osft-doc-0836/c42", "open-science-source-10/c78", "osft-doc-1507/c32", "osft-doc-1507/c91", "osft-doc-1781/c100", "osft-doc-0645/c90", "open-science-source-10/c108", "osft-doc-1507/c70", "open-science-source-45/c285", "osft-doc-0731/c7", "osft-doc-1507/c77", "open-science-source-12/c64", "osft-doc-1373/c323" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 26, "claims": 64, "documents": 20 } }, { "id": "bu-040", "kind": "mixed", "name": "Named organizations, registries, and alliances build infrastructure for finding and sharing research data.", "definition": "Members describe specific research-data infrastructure entities — repositories like re3data, alliances like RDA, national bodies like RatSWD, and initiatives like GREI, FAIRsFAIR, and Nestor — stating their goals, tasks, and relation to FAIR principles. A new position belongs here if it factually describes the purpose, scope, or activity of a named data-infrastructure organization, registry, or standard-setting body. It does NOT belong if it makes a general normative or empirical claim about open data's societal effects (e.g., on genomics, innovation, or equity), about broad sharing trends, or about unrelated domain-specific standards (e.g., PDBx/mmCIF, sequence-release policy) that are not tied to one of these named infrastructure entities.", "coherence": "low", "subpositions": [ { "statement": "Registries such as re3data catalog and describe research data repositories.", "members": [ 0, 1, 2, 5, 6, 18 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1507/c131", "osft-doc-1507/c129", "osft-doc-1507/c132", "osft-doc-1507/c138", "osft-doc-1507/c133", "osft-doc-1507/c130" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Alliances and national bodies coordinate data infrastructure, standards, and interests.", "members": [ 3, 4, 12, 13, 17, 19, 21, 22, 23, 8, 14 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-24-c5/c37", "osft-doc-1507/c82", "open-science-source-26/c78", "osft-doc-1507/c79", "osft-doc-1507/c63", "osft-doc-1507/c17", "osft-doc-1507/c80", "osft-doc-1507/c92", "osft-doc-0645/c34", "osft-doc-1507/c43", "osft-doc-1686/c45" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Open genomic data yields innovation, value, and inequity simultaneously.", "members": [ 7, 16, 27 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-26/c73", "open-science-source-26/c74", "open-science-source-26/c75" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "General attitudes toward and prevalence of open data sharing are improving.", "members": [ 9, 20 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-12/c17", "open-science-source-12/c14" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Domain-specific data standards must evolve to support new experimental methods.", "members": [ 25, 26 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-16-c1/c159", "open-science-source-14-c2/c4" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" } ], "outliers": [ { "rep": "open-science-source-26/c73", "text": "Open genomic data supports innovation.", "why": "About genomic data's societal effect, not an infrastructure organization" }, { "rep": "open-science-source-26/c74", "text": "Open genomic data enables the appropriation of value.", "why": "About value appropriation from genomic data, off-topic" }, { "rep": "open-science-source-26/c75", "text": "Open genomic data increases inequities.", "why": "About equity effects of genomic data, off-topic" }, { "rep": "open-science-source-16-c1/c159", "text": "The PDBx/mmCIF data dictionary must be frequently extended to support expanded collection of metadata for rapidly evolving experimental methods such as SFX/XFEL and 3DEM.", "why": "Specific metadata dictionary requirement, unrelated to named registries" }, { "rep": "open-science-source-14-c2/c4", "text": "Rapid release of sequence data should continue.", "why": "Normative policy on sequence release, not an infrastructure description" }, { "rep": "osft-doc-0142/c1305", "text": "Scientometric data are fairly well developed.", "why": "General claim about scientometric data maturity, no organization named" }, { "rep": "open-science-source-26/c90", "text": "Community data rights are just at the beginning of a similar journey to Indigenous data governance.", "why": "About Indigenous data governance parallel, unrelated to infrastructure orgs" }, { "rep": "open-science-source-14-c1/c312", "text": "Community resource projects are specifically devised and implemented to create a set of data, reagents, or other material whose primary utility will be as a resource for the broad scientific community.", "why": "Generic definition of community resource projects, not tied to named entities" }, { "rep": "osft-doc-0298/c135", "text": "Discovering datasets is the first step in reusing public data.", "why": "General claim about dataset discovery as a first step, too generic" } ], "clusterStats": { "size": 28, "claims": 61, "documents": 20, "meanIntraCos": 0.809, "minIntraCos": 0.743 }, "starIds": [ "open-science-source-26/c78", "osft-doc-1686/c45", "osft-doc-1507/c129", "open-science-source-26/c90", "osft-doc-1507/c138", "open-science-source-12/c14", "open-science-source-12/c17", "open-science-source-14-c1/c312", "open-science-source-14-c2/c4", "open-science-source-16-c1/c159", "open-science-source-24-c5/c37", "open-science-source-26/c73", "open-science-source-26/c74", "open-science-source-26/c75", "osft-doc-0142/c1305", "osft-doc-0298/c135", "osft-doc-0645/c34", "osft-doc-1507/c130", "osft-doc-1507/c131", "osft-doc-1507/c132", "osft-doc-1507/c133", "osft-doc-1507/c17", "osft-doc-1507/c43", "osft-doc-1507/c63", "osft-doc-1507/c79", "osft-doc-1507/c80", "osft-doc-1507/c82", "osft-doc-1507/c92" ], "clusterMemberOrder": [ "osft-doc-1507/c131", "osft-doc-1507/c129", "osft-doc-1507/c132", "open-science-source-24-c5/c37", "osft-doc-1507/c82", "osft-doc-1507/c138", "osft-doc-1507/c133", "open-science-source-26/c73", "osft-doc-1507/c43", "open-science-source-12/c17", "open-science-source-14-c1/c312", "osft-doc-0298/c135", "open-science-source-26/c78", "osft-doc-1507/c79", "osft-doc-1686/c45", "osft-doc-0142/c1305", "open-science-source-26/c74", "osft-doc-1507/c63", "osft-doc-1507/c130", "osft-doc-1507/c17", "open-science-source-12/c14", "osft-doc-1507/c80", "osft-doc-1507/c92", "osft-doc-0645/c34", "open-science-source-26/c90", "open-science-source-16-c1/c159", "open-science-source-14-c2/c4", "open-science-source-26/c75" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 28, "claims": 61, "documents": 20 } }, { "id": "bu-041", "kind": "mixed", "name": "Closed, commercialized, or misleadingly 'open' scholarly practices harm science, and current funding models are unsustainable", "definition": "Members claim that paywalls, APC-based publishing, commercial/non-transparent metrics providers, and closed decision-making by small funded groups damage public trust, societal progress, and equitable participation in scholarship. Other members claim that organizations relying solely on cost-recovery or free services are financially brittle and unsustainable, and that misusing 'open' terminology ('open washing') dilutes genuine openness. A smaller set warns that enthusiasm for openness itself can be naive, ignoring real dangers, critique, or platform-economy risks. A new position belongs here if it critiques a structural, financial, or rhetorical failure mode of current scholarly communication (paywalls, APCs, metrics vendors, sustainability models, open-washing, concentrated power); it does NOT belong if it proposes a specific technical standard, workflow, or positive policy recommendation unrelated to these harms.", "coherence": "low", "subpositions": [ { "statement": "Paywalled knowledge harms public trust, progress, industry, and practitioners.", "members": [ 1, 2, 3, 5 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0825/c20", "osft-doc-0825/c17", "osft-doc-0825/c18", "osft-doc-0825/c19" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "APC and cost-recovery-only funding models are unsustainable for scholarship.", "members": [ 0, 17, 12, 14, 18, 19 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-23/c5", "osft-doc-1673/c65", "open-science-source-06/c254", "osft-doc-0151/c73", "osft-doc-0151/c74", "osft-doc-0836/c45" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Misusing 'open' terminology ('open washing') dilutes and confuses its meaning.", "members": [ 6, 9, 11 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1373/c531", "osft-doc-1373/c535", "osft-doc-1373/c532" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Concentrating decisions in small, closed, funded groups threatens community control.", "members": [ 10, 15, 20, 21 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1373/c308", "osft-doc-0836/c12", "osft-doc-0836/c11", "osft-doc-1373/c309" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Openness itself carries overlooked dangers, limitations, and risks.", "members": [ 8, 13, 16, 7 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1373/c572", "osft-doc-1373/c575", "osft-doc-1373/c571", "open-science-source-02/c23" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" } ], "outliers": [ { "rep": "osft-doc-1673/c352", "text": "Continued reliance on non-transparent, non-reproducible metrics information from commercial providers will be detrimental to scholarship.", "why": "Focuses narrowly on commercial metrics providers, not openness/sustainability broadly" }, { "rep": "osft-doc-1373/c572", "text": "Enthusiasm for openness carries the danger of not acknowledging that there are situations where standard open practices can have dangers.", "why": "Warns against openness's own dangers, nearly opposite of the pro-openness critiques" }, { "rep": "osft-doc-1373/c571", "text": "Enthusiasm for openness carries the danger of not being receptive to critique.", "why": "Critiques openness enthusiasm's blind spots rather than closedness's harms" }, { "rep": "osft-doc-1373/c575", "text": "The limitations of openness also relate to the dangers of platform-based economies.", "why": "About platform-economy risks, a distinct concern from paywalls or APCs" } ], "clusterStats": { "size": 22, "claims": 64, "documents": 20, "meanIntraCos": 0.805, "minIntraCos": 0.746 }, "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0151/c73", "osft-doc-0151/c74", "osft-doc-1673/c352", "osft-doc-1673/c65", "open-science-source-23/c5", "osft-doc-0836/c45", "osft-doc-1373/c308", "osft-doc-1373/c532", "osft-doc-1373/c535", "open-science-source-02/c23", "open-science-source-06/c254", "osft-doc-0825/c17", "osft-doc-0825/c18", "osft-doc-0825/c19", "osft-doc-0825/c20", "osft-doc-0836/c11", "osft-doc-0836/c12", "osft-doc-1373/c309", "osft-doc-1373/c531", "osft-doc-1373/c571", "osft-doc-1373/c572", "osft-doc-1373/c575" ], "clusterMemberOrder": [ "open-science-source-23/c5", "osft-doc-0825/c20", "osft-doc-0825/c17", "osft-doc-0825/c18", "osft-doc-1673/c352", "osft-doc-0825/c19", "osft-doc-1373/c531", "open-science-source-02/c23", "osft-doc-1373/c572", "osft-doc-1373/c535", "osft-doc-1373/c308", "osft-doc-1373/c532", "open-science-source-06/c254", "osft-doc-1373/c575", "osft-doc-0151/c73", "osft-doc-0836/c12", "osft-doc-1373/c571", "osft-doc-1673/c65", "osft-doc-0151/c74", "osft-doc-0836/c45", "osft-doc-0836/c11", "osft-doc-1373/c309" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 22, "claims": 64, "documents": 20 } }, { "id": "bu-042", "kind": "mixed", "name": "Infrastructure organisations should plan for succession, wind-down, and support of the staff who sustain them", "definition": "Members hold that infrastructure organisations should publish a \"living will\" specifying when and how they would wind down, how assets and data would be archived or transferred, and what criteria a successor organisation must meet (including honouring the same principles). A second, related strand holds that organisations should reduce dependence on key individuals and give structured recognition, incentives, and career support to staff, volunteers, editors, and specialist roles that keep the organisation running. It does NOT include general statements about funding open science activities in the abstract, or mechanisms specific to subscription cancellation, post-cancellation access, or offsetting-deal administration, which belong to journal/publisher business-model topics rather than organisational continuity or workforce planning.", "coherence": "medium", "subpositions": [ { "statement": "Publish a living will describing wind-down conditions and asset/data transfer.", "members": [ 0, 1, 5, 3, 6, 9 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0836/c35", "osft-doc-1287/c36", "osft-doc-0020/c29", "open-science-source-09/c59", "osft-doc-0836/c40", "osft-doc-0020/c34" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "A successor organisation must meet defined criteria and honour the same principles.", "members": [ 2, 12, 16, 10 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-09/c13", "open-science-source-09/c56", "open-science-source-09/c14", "open-science-source-09/c42" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Reduce dependence on key individuals through succession planning.", "members": [ 4 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-09/c38" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Recognise and structurally support volunteers, staff, and specialist roles.", "members": [ 7, 8, 13, 14, 15 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-09/c36", "open-science-source-09/c37", "open-science-source-10/c61", "osft-doc-0050/c123", "osft-doc-0050/c103" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" } ], "outliers": [ { "rep": "osft-doc-1283/c26", "text": "All stakeholders in research and its communication must take responsibility for supporting Open Science activities, including appropriate financial and administrative support to ensure long-term sustainability and minimize the bureaucratic burden on researchers.", "why": "generic call for stakeholder financial support of open science, not about succession or staffing" }, { "rep": "osft-doc-1373/c80", "text": "Where subscription cancellations or terminations occur, adequate post-subscription access and support should be ensured using existing sustainable and legal mechanisms.", "why": "about post-subscription-cancellation access mechanisms, unrelated to organisational continuity" }, { "rep": "osft-doc-1373/c126", "text": "Where offsetting deals are in place, they should be streamlined and standardised across sectors to reduce administrative burden.", "why": "about standardising publisher offsetting deals, unrelated to succession or workforce planning" } ], "clusterStats": { "size": 19, "claims": 56, "documents": 18, "meanIntraCos": 0.817, "minIntraCos": 0.765 }, "starIds": [ "open-science-source-09/c56", "osft-doc-1287/c36", "open-science-source-09/c59", "osft-doc-0836/c35", "open-science-source-09/c36", "open-science-source-09/c37", "open-science-source-09/c38", "osft-doc-0020/c29", "osft-doc-1373/c126", "osft-doc-1373/c80", "open-science-source-09/c13", "osft-doc-1283/c26", "open-science-source-09/c14", "open-science-source-09/c42", "open-science-source-10/c61", "osft-doc-0020/c34", "osft-doc-0050/c103", "osft-doc-0050/c123", "osft-doc-0836/c40" ], "clusterMemberOrder": [ "osft-doc-0836/c35", "osft-doc-1287/c36", "open-science-source-09/c13", "open-science-source-09/c59", "open-science-source-09/c38", "osft-doc-0020/c29", "osft-doc-0836/c40", "open-science-source-09/c36", "open-science-source-09/c37", "osft-doc-0020/c34", "open-science-source-09/c42", "osft-doc-1283/c26", "open-science-source-09/c56", "open-science-source-10/c61", "osft-doc-0050/c123", "osft-doc-0050/c103", "open-science-source-09/c14", "osft-doc-1373/c80", "osft-doc-1373/c126" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 19, "claims": 56, "documents": 18 } }, { "id": "bu-043", "kind": "mixed", "name": "Funding agencies should require grantees to grant a license ensuring public reuse of publications.", "definition": "Most members concern federal funding agencies (e.g., NIST, NIJ, NSF) requiring grantees, as a term of the award, to grant the agency an additional license beyond the pre-existing \"federal purpose license\" so the agency can extend reuse rights to the public for scholarly publications; several members explain how the existing federal purpose license already grants agencies broad authority, and how university copyright policies already allocate rights in a way that enables compliance. A new position belongs here if it addresses whether/how a funding agency secures reuse rights to grantee-produced publications, the mechanism (term-and-condition licensing, federal purpose license, university rights retention), or institutional compliance with such requirements. A smaller, unrelated strand of members instead concerns whether infrastructure organisations should adopt patent non-assertion covenants and refrain from using patents to block community replication of their infrastructure; this patent-policy strand does not belong to the publication-licensing theme and should be treated as a separate topic.", "coherence": "medium", "subpositions": [ { "statement": "Agencies should require grantees to grant an additional public-reuse license.", "members": [ 0, 1, 2, 3 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-24-c3/c22", "open-science-source-24-c9/c25", "open-science-source-24-c5/c54", "open-science-source-24-c3/c26" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "The existing federal purpose license already grants agencies broad reuse authority.", "members": [ 4, 5, 7, 8 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-24-c3/c49", "open-science-source-24-c3/c47", "open-science-source-24-c2/c82", "open-science-source-24-c8/c55" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "University copyright policies already enable compliance with such licensing requirements.", "members": [ 6, 9, 10, 13 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-24-c3/c64", "open-science-source-24-c3/c61", "open-science-source-24-c3/c62", "open-science-source-15-c2/c50" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Infrastructure organisations should adopt patent non-assertion covenants and not block replication.", "members": [ 11, 12, 14, 15 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-09/c47", "osft-doc-0151/c119", "open-science-source-09/c48", "osft-doc-0846/c87" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" } ], "outliers": [ { "rep": "open-science-source-09/c47", "text": "The organisation should commit to a patent non-assertion policy or covenant.", "why": "Concerns patent non-assertion policy for organisations, not publication licensing." }, { "rep": "osft-doc-0151/c119", "text": "An infrastructure organisation should commit to a patent non-assertion covenant.", "why": "Concerns patent non-assertion policy for infrastructure organisations, not publication licensing." }, { "rep": "open-science-source-09/c48", "text": "The organisation may obtain patents to protect its own operations.", "why": "Concerns an organisation's own patenting for operational protection, unrelated to grantee publication licenses." }, { "rep": "osft-doc-0846/c87", "text": "An infrastructure organisation must not use patents to prevent the community from replicating the infrastructure.", "why": "Concerns prohibiting patents from blocking infrastructure replication, a distinct patent-policy topic." } ], "clusterStats": { "size": 16, "claims": 62, "documents": 19, "meanIntraCos": 0.834, "minIntraCos": 0.764 }, "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0846/c87", "open-science-source-09/c48", "open-science-source-24-c3/c26", "open-science-source-24-c8/c55", "open-science-source-24-c3/c47", "osft-doc-0151/c119", "open-science-source-24-c3/c22", "open-science-source-24-c3/c61", "open-science-source-09/c47", "open-science-source-24-c5/c54", "open-science-source-24-c3/c49", "open-science-source-24-c3/c62", "open-science-source-24-c3/c64", "open-science-source-15-c2/c50", "open-science-source-24-c2/c82", "open-science-source-24-c9/c25" ], "clusterMemberOrder": [ "open-science-source-24-c3/c22", "open-science-source-24-c9/c25", "open-science-source-24-c5/c54", "open-science-source-24-c3/c26", "open-science-source-24-c3/c49", "open-science-source-24-c3/c47", "open-science-source-24-c3/c64", "open-science-source-24-c2/c82", "open-science-source-24-c8/c55", "open-science-source-24-c3/c61", "open-science-source-24-c3/c62", "open-science-source-09/c47", "osft-doc-0151/c119", "open-science-source-15-c2/c50", "open-science-source-09/c48", "osft-doc-0846/c87" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 16, "claims": 62, "documents": 19 } }, { "id": "bu-044", "kind": "convergence", "name": "Journal Impact Factor and journal-based metrics are invalid proxies for quality and should not be used in evaluation", "definition": "Members claim that the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) and similar journal-level or journal-brand metrics do not validly measure the quality or impact of individual articles, researchers, or research groups, and therefore should not be used — or should be eliminated — in funding, hiring, promotion, and research assessment. Several members explain why this proxy fails: it conflates a journal-level statistic with article/author quality, was designed for library purchasing rather than quality assessment, and privileging it distorts research priorities and disadvantages equitable publishing models. A new position belongs here if it addresses the validity or appropriate use of journal-level metrics (especially JIF) as a quality signal in research evaluation; it would NOT belong if it proposes or evaluates specific alternative metrics/indicators without addressing JIF's validity, or discusses open-access/publishing economics unrelated to evaluation metrics.", "coherence": "high", "subpositions": [ { "statement": "JIF is not a valid measure of individual article or researcher quality.", "members": [ 0, 3, 6, 7, 12, 13 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-06/c66", "osft-doc-1449/c364", "open-science-source-55/c39", "open-science-source-02/c122", "open-science-source-06/c67", "osft-doc-0108/c12" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "JIF and journal-based metrics should not be used in evaluation.", "members": [ 1, 2, 8, 11 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1283/c56", "osft-doc-1449/c355", "osft-doc-0108/c20", "osft-doc-1373/c424" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Privileging journal-based prestige metrics distorts priorities and disadvantages equity.", "members": [ 9, 10 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-10/c167", "open-science-source-10/c168" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Traditional impact metrics are too narrowly focused on journal publication.", "members": [ 4, 5 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1459/c436", "osft-doc-1373/c407" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" } ], "outliers": [ { "rep": "osft-doc-1373/c434", "text": "New metrics will not solve the publish or perish problem, but will only transfer it.", "why": "Shifts to critique of new/alternative metrics generally, not JIF's validity as a proxy" } ], "clusterStats": { "size": 15, "claims": 60, "documents": 19, "meanIntraCos": 0.852, "minIntraCos": 0.778 }, "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1283/c56", "open-science-source-02/c122", "osft-doc-1449/c355", "osft-doc-1449/c364", "open-science-source-06/c66", "osft-doc-1373/c407", "osft-doc-0108/c20", "osft-doc-0108/c12", "osft-doc-1373/c434", "open-science-source-06/c67", "open-science-source-55/c39", "osft-doc-1373/c424", "osft-doc-1459/c436", "open-science-source-10/c167", "open-science-source-10/c168" ], "clusterMemberOrder": [ "open-science-source-06/c66", "osft-doc-1283/c56", "osft-doc-1449/c355", "osft-doc-1449/c364", "osft-doc-1459/c436", "osft-doc-1373/c407", "open-science-source-55/c39", "open-science-source-02/c122", "osft-doc-0108/c20", "open-science-source-10/c167", "open-science-source-10/c168", "osft-doc-1373/c424", "open-science-source-06/c67", "osft-doc-0108/c12", "osft-doc-1373/c434" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 15, "claims": 60, "documents": 19 } }, { "id": "bu-045", "kind": "mixed", "name": "Open-science tools, principles, and publishing practices have specific unaddressed transparency and equity gaps", "definition": "This cluster gathers descriptive claims that identify concrete shortcomings in existing open-science infrastructure and practice: opaque or inequitable article-processing-charge pricing and funding, FAIR and CARE principles that fail to cover power differentials, historical context, or biomedical data, scarce pharmaceutical-industry preprints of clinical data, non-transparent metrics like the Journal Impact Factor, and gaps between open-scholarship ideals (openness, literacy) and current practice. A new position belongs here if it states, as an observed fact, that a named open-science mechanism, principle, or actor currently lacks something (transparency, coverage, awareness, accountability, or process). It does NOT belong if it argues for a specific reform, mandate, or funding model (normative proposals) rather than describing the deficiency itself.", "coherence": "low", "subpositions": [ { "statement": "Article-processing-charge pricing and funding lack transparency and equity.", "members": [ 0, 1, 4, 7, 12 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1373/c600", "osft-doc-1373/c604", "osft-doc-1373/c607", "osft-doc-0825/c57", "open-science-source-02/c160" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "FAIR and CARE principles omit power, context, and biomedical data needs.", "members": [ 2, 3, 6, 8, 9 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-26/c46", "open-science-source-26/c140", "osft-doc-1507/c124", "osft-doc-1507/c58", "open-science-source-26/c52" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Pharmaceutical industry rarely posts preprints of primary clinical data.", "members": [ 11, 14 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1459/c305", "osft-doc-1459/c304" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Impact metrics and platforms like Google Scholar lack transparency or accountability.", "members": [ 10, 15 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0108/c16", "osft-doc-0836/c91" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Open scholarship's core values are missing from traditional practice and literacy efforts.", "members": [ 5, 13, 16 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1373/c250", "osft-doc-0441/c66", "osft-doc-1373/c533" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" } ], "outliers": [ { "rep": "osft-doc-1373/c533", "text": "Free is not open.", "why": "A standalone definitional aphorism, not a described infrastructural gap." }, { "rep": "osft-doc-0836/c91", "text": "Google Scholar has no responsibility to the community.", "why": "A single claim about one platform's accountability, unrelated to the other topics." } ], "clusterStats": { "size": 17, "claims": 35, "documents": 18, "meanIntraCos": 0.804, "minIntraCos": 0.751 }, "starIds": [ "open-science-source-26/c52", "osft-doc-1373/c250", "open-science-source-02/c160", "open-science-source-26/c140", "open-science-source-26/c46", "osft-doc-0108/c16", "osft-doc-0441/c66", "osft-doc-0825/c57", "osft-doc-0836/c91", "osft-doc-1373/c533", "osft-doc-1373/c600", "osft-doc-1373/c604", "osft-doc-1373/c607", "osft-doc-1459/c304", "osft-doc-1459/c305", "osft-doc-1507/c124", "osft-doc-1507/c58" ], "clusterMemberOrder": [ "osft-doc-1373/c600", "osft-doc-1373/c604", "open-science-source-26/c46", "open-science-source-26/c140", "osft-doc-1373/c607", "osft-doc-1373/c250", "osft-doc-1507/c124", "osft-doc-0825/c57", "osft-doc-1507/c58", "open-science-source-26/c52", "osft-doc-0108/c16", "osft-doc-1459/c305", "open-science-source-02/c160", "osft-doc-0441/c66", "osft-doc-1459/c304", "osft-doc-0836/c91", "osft-doc-1373/c533" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 17, "claims": 35, "documents": 18 } }, { "id": "bu-046", "kind": "mixed", "name": "Subscription and hybrid journals should be forced to transition fully to open access.", "definition": "Members call for ending subscription and hybrid publishing by mandating full open access, using levers such as refusing to renew or fund hybrid-journal subscriptions that lack sufficient OA uptake, mandating offsetting agreements to stop double-dipping, capping APCs to OA-market levels, reallocating institutional funds away from restricted-access titles, and penalizing non-compliance with OA mandates. It centers on the mechanics and enforcement of the subscription-to-OA transition specifically for journals and publishers/funders/institutions. It does NOT cover other open-scholarship reform proposals unrelated to the OA publishing-transition mechanism itself, such as reference-list limits, impact-factor deemphasis, patenting, jargon reduction, wholesale replacement of research workflows, or data-sharing enforcement — these are adjacent open-science normative claims but not about how journals/publishers move from subscription to OA.", "coherence": "medium", "subpositions": [ { "statement": "Journals and publishers should fully transition to open access by a set deadline.", "members": [ 0, 1, 3, 5 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0114/c20", "osft-doc-1673/c79", "osft-doc-0825/c50", "open-science-source-43/c70" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Bodies should defund or refuse renewal of hybrid journals lacking sufficient OA share.", "members": [ 2, 4, 6, 9, 13 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1373/c186", "osft-doc-1373/c184", "osft-doc-1373/c185", "osft-doc-1373/c122", "osft-doc-1373/c125" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Universities should redirect funding from subscriptions toward full open-access publishing services.", "members": [ 7 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1398/c46" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Non-compliance with open-access mandates should be penalized, since soft incentives fail.", "members": [ 12, 14 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1373/c215", "open-science-source-02/c306" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" } ], "outliers": [ { "rep": "osft-doc-0108/c41", "text": "Publishers should remove or reduce the constraints on the number of references in research articles.", "why": "About reference-count limits, unrelated to the OA transition mechanism" }, { "rep": "osft-doc-0108/c35", "text": "Publishers should greatly reduce emphasis on the journal impact factor as a promotional tool.", "why": "About journal impact factor promotion, not subscription-to-OA transition" }, { "rep": "osft-doc-1373/c322", "text": "Open Scholarship should move away from patenting.", "why": "About patenting in open scholarship, unrelated topic" }, { "rep": "osft-doc-1459/c325", "text": "Traditional research workflows should be replaced entirely by Open Scholarship methodologies.", "why": "General claim about replacing research workflows, not journal OA transition" }, { "rep": "osft-doc-1373/c540", "text": "To lower engagement thresholds, the use of jargon should be avoided where possible.", "why": "About avoiding jargon, unrelated to publishing model transition" }, { "rep": "osft-doc-0150/c187", "text": "Meaningful change in data sharing practices requires stronger mandates and enforcement rather than gentle prompts.", "why": "About data-sharing enforcement, a different open-science topic" } ], "clusterStats": { "size": 18, "claims": 45, "documents": 16, "meanIntraCos": 0.832, "minIntraCos": 0.749 }, "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1373/c540", "osft-doc-0108/c35", "osft-doc-1373/c122", "osft-doc-1373/c125", "osft-doc-1373/c184", "osft-doc-1373/c185", "osft-doc-1373/c215", "osft-doc-1459/c325", "osft-doc-1673/c79", "open-science-source-02/c306", "osft-doc-0108/c41", "osft-doc-0114/c20", "osft-doc-0150/c187", "osft-doc-0825/c50", "osft-doc-1373/c186", "osft-doc-1373/c322", "osft-doc-1398/c46", "open-science-source-43/c70" ], "clusterMemberOrder": [ "osft-doc-0114/c20", "osft-doc-1673/c79", "osft-doc-1373/c186", "osft-doc-0825/c50", "osft-doc-1373/c184", "open-science-source-43/c70", "osft-doc-1373/c185", "osft-doc-1398/c46", "osft-doc-0108/c41", "osft-doc-1373/c122", "osft-doc-0108/c35", "osft-doc-1373/c322", "osft-doc-1373/c215", "osft-doc-1373/c125", "open-science-source-02/c306", "osft-doc-1459/c325", "osft-doc-1373/c540", "osft-doc-0150/c187" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 18, "claims": 45, "documents": 16 } }, { "id": "bu-047", "kind": "mixed", "name": "AI is rapidly transforming scientific research, bringing both new capabilities and new risks.", "definition": "Members claim that AI (especially generative AI and machine-learning tools) is being adopted at growing scale by researchers, enhancing efficiency, creativity, data analysis, and discovery, while also reshaping specific practices such as peer review and grant writing and introducing risks like data-quality dependence, reduced interpretability, environmental cost, and uneven output quality. It covers general statements about AI's growing role in research as well as narrower claims about its effects on manuscript screening, peer review, and proposal writing. It excludes claims not about AI's role in the research process itself, such as generic definitions of unrelated metrics or tools (e.g., altmetrics) that merely happen to involve automated data collection.", "coherence": "medium", "subpositions": [ { "statement": "AI use by researchers is growing rapidly and becoming established.", "members": [ 0, 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-42/c2", "open-science-source-41/c112", "open-science-source-42/c427", "open-science-source-45/c68", "open-science-source-45/c24", "open-science-source-42/c1", "open-science-source-41/c1", "open-science-source-45/c58", "open-science-source-45/c53" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "AI enhances research efficiency, creativity, and discovery.", "members": [ 3, 6, 13, 14, 15, 16, 22 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-42/c4", "open-science-source-42/c67", "open-science-source-42/c181", "open-science-source-41/c329", "open-science-source-41/c287", "open-science-source-41/c58", "open-science-source-41/c83" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "AI is changing peer review and manuscript screening.", "members": [ 17, 18, 19, 21, 24 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-41/c50", "osft-doc-0050/c126", "open-science-source-18/c208", "open-science-source-18/c105", "osft-doc-0050/c127" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "AI-driven research growth raises risks to quality, data, and environment.", "members": [ 8, 12, 20, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-42/c203", "open-science-source-18/c302", "open-science-source-18/c486", "osft-doc-0298/c168", "open-science-source-17/c76", "open-science-source-41/c332", "open-science-source-41/c363", "open-science-source-41/c102" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" } ], "outliers": [ { "rep": "osft-doc-0142/c218", "text": "Altmetrics indicators are derived from social websites, such as Twitter, Academia.edu, Mendeley, and ResearchGate, with data that can be gathered automatically by computer programs.", "why": "Describes altmetrics data sources, not AI's role in research" } ], "clusterStats": { "size": 30, "claims": 72, "documents": 14, "meanIntraCos": 0.839, "minIntraCos": 0.749 }, "starIds": [ "open-science-source-41/c1", "open-science-source-45/c68", "open-science-source-17/c76", "open-science-source-18/c208", "open-science-source-18/c302", "open-science-source-41/c329", "open-science-source-42/c203", "osft-doc-0298/c168", "open-science-source-41/c112", "open-science-source-42/c181", "open-science-source-42/c427", "open-science-source-45/c53", "open-science-source-42/c67", "open-science-source-45/c24", "open-science-source-45/c58", "open-science-source-42/c1", "open-science-source-18/c105", "open-science-source-18/c486", "open-science-source-41/c102", "open-science-source-41/c332", "open-science-source-41/c363", "open-science-source-41/c50", "open-science-source-41/c58", "open-science-source-41/c83", "open-science-source-42/c2", "open-science-source-42/c4", "osft-doc-0050/c126", "osft-doc-0050/c127", "osft-doc-0142/c218", "open-science-source-41/c287" ], "clusterMemberOrder": [ "open-science-source-42/c2", "open-science-source-41/c112", "open-science-source-42/c427", "open-science-source-42/c4", "open-science-source-45/c68", "open-science-source-45/c24", "open-science-source-42/c67", "open-science-source-42/c1", "open-science-source-42/c203", "open-science-source-41/c1", "open-science-source-45/c58", "open-science-source-45/c53", "open-science-source-18/c302", "open-science-source-42/c181", "open-science-source-41/c329", "open-science-source-41/c287", "open-science-source-41/c58", "open-science-source-41/c50", "osft-doc-0050/c126", "open-science-source-18/c208", "open-science-source-18/c486", "open-science-source-18/c105", "open-science-source-41/c83", "osft-doc-0298/c168", "osft-doc-0050/c127", "open-science-source-17/c76", "open-science-source-41/c332", "open-science-source-41/c363", "open-science-source-41/c102", "osft-doc-0142/c218" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 30, "claims": 72, "documents": 14 } }, { "id": "bu-048", "kind": "convergence", "name": "Institutions and funders should refuse to pay or engage publishers over unfair fee practices", "definition": "Members hold that research institutes, funders, and authors should refuse to reward publishers' extractive fee practices: non-transparent pricing or non-disclosure agreements, restrictive preprint/OA/copyright policies, double-dipping (charging both subscriptions and APCs), hybrid-journal APCs, and charging a fee simply to deposit a paper in a repository. They also insist that satisfying an open-access compliance mandate must not be equated with paying an APC, and that grant funds earmarked for research should not be diverted to cover publishing fees. A new position belongs here if it concerns refusing, restricting, or reallocating payment/engagement in response to a publisher's fee or access practice. It would NOT belong if it concerns unrelated funding-management rules (e.g., matching fund duration to activity duration) or embargo-period policy detached from any fee or payment mechanism.", "coherence": "medium", "subpositions": [ { "statement": "Refuse to engage publishers with opaque pricing or restrictive OA policies.", "members": [ 0, 1, 2 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1373/c92", "osft-doc-1373/c94", "osft-doc-1373/c90" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "APCs should not be paid at hybrid journals or from grant budgets.", "members": [ 3, 4 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-02/c321", "open-science-source-28/c25" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Compliance with OA mandates must not be conflated with paying APCs.", "members": [ 5 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-24-c3/c9" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Publishers condition repository deposit on payment of a publication charge.", "members": [ 6 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-36/c123" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" } ], "outliers": [ { "rep": "open-science-source-36/c114", "text": "OSTP's 2022 guidance no longer allows an embargo period.", "why": "Concerns OSTP embargo policy, unrelated to publisher fees or payment refusal." }, { "rep": "osft-doc-0836/c46", "text": "Time-limited funds should be used only for time-limited activities.", "why": "General budget-allocation rule about matching fund duration, not about publisher fees." } ], "clusterStats": { "size": 9, "claims": 23, "documents": 16, "meanIntraCos": 0.829, "minIntraCos": 0.74 }, "starIds": [ "open-science-source-24-c3/c9", "open-science-source-02/c321", "open-science-source-28/c25", "open-science-source-36/c114", "open-science-source-36/c123", "osft-doc-0836/c46", "osft-doc-1373/c90", "osft-doc-1373/c92", "osft-doc-1373/c94" ], "clusterMemberOrder": [ "osft-doc-1373/c92", "osft-doc-1373/c94", "osft-doc-1373/c90", "open-science-source-02/c321", "open-science-source-28/c25", "open-science-source-24-c3/c9", "open-science-source-36/c123", "open-science-source-36/c114", "osft-doc-0836/c46" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 9, "claims": 23, "documents": 16 } }, { "id": "bu-049", "kind": "mixed", "name": "Structural inequality and privilege bias academic participation, and quantitative metrics poorly assess research.", "definition": "Members claim that academic and open-scholarship systems are shaped by privilege, language, geography, discipline, and career stage — determining who gets studied, who becomes a prominent scholar, who accesses higher education, and whose journals or research agendas are recognized (e.g., bias against non-English speakers, developing-country journals, non-'science' disciplines). A second, related strand claims that the quantitative and bibliometric tools used to assess researchers (citation counts, indicators) are unreliable, non-transparent, or fail to distinguish negative from positive attention, and are themselves distrusted. Belongs here: diagnostic empirical claims about *why* academic systems are unequal or *why* current metrics/assessment practices are flawed. Does NOT belong: proposed remedies or policy commitments to fix these problems, or claims about open-access cost/paywall barriers, which are separate issues.", "coherence": "medium", "subpositions": [ { "statement": "Academic structures and open scholarship perpetuate inequity based on privilege, language, geography.", "members": [ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0441/c111", "osft-doc-1612/c22", "osft-doc-0441/c110", "osft-doc-0441/c102", "open-science-source-05/c11", "osft-doc-0441/c76", "osft-doc-0441/c101", "osft-doc-1373/c577", "osft-doc-0441/c109", "osft-doc-1373/c302", "osft-doc-1373/c265", "osft-doc-0441/c97", "osft-doc-0441/c99", "osft-doc-0441/c304" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "The term 'Open Science' itself may exclude non-science, non-English fields.", "members": [ 17, 18 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1373/c267", "osft-doc-1373/c268" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Quantitative and bibliometric research assessment indicators are unreliable or distrusted.", "members": [ 13, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-05/c9", "osft-doc-1047/c23", "osft-doc-1047/c24", "osft-doc-0142/c694", "osft-doc-0142/c212", "osft-doc-0142/c211", "osft-doc-0142/c459" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" } ], "outliers": [], "clusterStats": { "size": 23, "claims": 51, "documents": 15, "meanIntraCos": 0.827, "minIntraCos": 0.756 }, "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0441/c102", "osft-doc-0142/c459", "osft-doc-1373/c302", "osft-doc-1047/c23", "osft-doc-1047/c24", "open-science-source-05/c11", "open-science-source-05/c9", "osft-doc-0142/c211", "osft-doc-0142/c212", "osft-doc-0142/c694", "osft-doc-0441/c101", "osft-doc-0441/c109", "osft-doc-0441/c110", "osft-doc-0441/c111", "osft-doc-0441/c304", "osft-doc-0441/c76", "osft-doc-0441/c97", "osft-doc-0441/c99", "osft-doc-1373/c265", "osft-doc-1373/c267", "osft-doc-1373/c268", "osft-doc-1373/c577", "osft-doc-1612/c22" ], "clusterMemberOrder": [ "osft-doc-0441/c111", "osft-doc-1612/c22", "osft-doc-0441/c110", "osft-doc-0441/c102", "open-science-source-05/c11", "osft-doc-0441/c76", "osft-doc-0441/c101", "osft-doc-1373/c577", "osft-doc-0441/c109", "osft-doc-1373/c302", "osft-doc-1373/c265", "osft-doc-0441/c97", "osft-doc-0441/c99", "open-science-source-05/c9", "osft-doc-0441/c304", "osft-doc-1047/c23", "osft-doc-1047/c24", "osft-doc-1373/c267", "osft-doc-1373/c268", "osft-doc-0142/c694", "osft-doc-0142/c212", "osft-doc-0142/c211", "osft-doc-0142/c459" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 23, "claims": 51, "documents": 15 } }, { "id": "bu-050", "kind": "mixed", "name": "Funders hold power over research practice and should redirect investment toward openness and sustainability", "definition": "Members claim that research funders (and to a lesser extent libraries) control resources and can therefore mandate publication venues, licenses, embargo terms, and APC/BPC caps, and should use this leverage to shift spending toward open infrastructure, structural rather than short-term grants, and collective/institutional rather than individual funding models. A separate, weaker thread within the cluster consists of empirical observations about funding-system dynamics — rising application volumes, AI-driven demand growth, and a bias toward novel research or tool creation — that describe funding-system behavior but do not concern funders' power or normative direction-setting. A new position belongs here if it concerns what funders can or should require, fund, or prioritize; positions about researcher behavior, publisher practices, or general open-access norms unrelated to funder leverage do not belong.", "coherence": "medium", "subpositions": [ { "statement": "Funders can mandate specific publication venues, licenses, embargoes, or fee caps.", "members": [ 0, 2, 3, 6 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1373/c88", "osft-doc-1373/c86", "osft-doc-1373/c87", "osft-doc-1373/c89" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Funders should shift spending toward open infrastructure and sustained investment.", "members": [ 1, 4, 5, 9, 12 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-46/c105", "open-science-source-15-c2/c16", "open-science-source-10/c11", "open-science-source-15-c2/c150", "open-science-source-38/c124" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Funding allocation should shift to institutional or collective success measures.", "members": [ 8, 15 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-18/c761", "open-science-source-18/c632" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Funding application volumes are rising, partly driven by AI.", "members": [ 13, 14 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-18/c347", "open-science-source-18/c352" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Funding calls favor novel research and new tool creation.", "members": [ 7, 11 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-37-c1/c127", "open-science-source-37-c1/c135" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" } ], "outliers": [ { "rep": "open-science-source-37-c1/c127", "text": "Funding calls usually focus on novel research.", "why": "Describes a funding-call pattern, not funder power or a normative call to act" }, { "rep": "open-science-source-37-c1/c135", "text": "Funding is mainly allocated to the creation of new tools.", "why": "Empirical observation about funding allocation to tools, unrelated to funder leverage/investment shift" }, { "rep": "open-science-source-18/c347", "text": "Application influx to research funding is increasing.", "why": "Describes rising application volume, an unrelated funding-system dynamic" }, { "rep": "open-science-source-18/c352", "text": "The opportunities offered by AI will likely lead to further growth in application volumes for research funding.", "why": "Predicts AI-driven growth in applications, unrelated to funder power/direction-setting" } ], "clusterStats": { "size": 16, "claims": 37, "documents": 15, "meanIntraCos": 0.827, "minIntraCos": 0.776 }, "starIds": [ "open-science-source-37-c1/c127", "osft-doc-1373/c86", "osft-doc-1459/c162", "open-science-source-10/c11", "open-science-source-15-c2/c150", "open-science-source-38/c124", "open-science-source-46/c105", "open-science-source-15-c2/c16", "open-science-source-18/c347", "open-science-source-18/c352", "open-science-source-18/c632", "open-science-source-18/c761", "open-science-source-37-c1/c135", "osft-doc-1373/c87", "osft-doc-1373/c88", "osft-doc-1373/c89" ], "clusterMemberOrder": [ "osft-doc-1373/c88", "open-science-source-46/c105", "osft-doc-1373/c86", "osft-doc-1373/c87", "open-science-source-15-c2/c16", "open-science-source-10/c11", "osft-doc-1373/c89", "open-science-source-37-c1/c127", "open-science-source-18/c761", "open-science-source-15-c2/c150", "osft-doc-1459/c162", "open-science-source-37-c1/c135", "open-science-source-38/c124", "open-science-source-18/c347", "open-science-source-18/c352", "open-science-source-18/c632" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 16, "claims": 37, "documents": 15 } }, { "id": "bu-051", "kind": "convergence", "name": "Authors should retain copyright control over their work rather than transfer it to publishers", "definition": "Members hold that authors (not publishers or, by default, universities) should keep ownership or control of copyright in their scholarly works, and describe specific mechanisms for doing so — author addenda, the UK Scholarly Communications License, funder open-access licenses that override conflicting publication agreements, and existing university IP policies that already vest copyright in creators. They also note the empirical problem this responds to: copyright is still routinely transferred from researchers to publishers via standard transfer agreements. A new position belongs here if it concerns who holds or should hold copyright/rights in a scholarly work and how authors can secure or preserve that control; it does not belong if it concerns unrelated author labor obligations (e.g., peer review or editorial service), licensing terms for reuse once copyright is settled, or funding/cost issues.", "coherence": "medium", "subpositions": [ { "statement": "Authors normatively should retain copyright rather than transfer it.", "members": [ 0, 3, 4, 6 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-43/c44", "osft-doc-1373/c43", "osft-doc-0504/c19", "open-science-source-24-c2/c105" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Specific legal mechanisms (addenda, UK-SCL, funder licenses) let authors retain rights.", "members": [ 1, 2, 5 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1373/c44", "osft-doc-1373/c128", "open-science-source-24-c2/c21" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "In practice, copyright is still commonly transferred to publishers.", "members": [ 7 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1373/c599" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" } ], "outliers": [ { "rep": "osft-doc-1373/c54", "text": "Individuals may refuse to perform peer review and editorial work for free for commercial publishers.", "why": "Concerns refusing unpaid peer review/editorial labor, not copyright retention." } ], "clusterStats": { "size": 9, "claims": 22, "documents": 13, "meanIntraCos": 0.836, "minIntraCos": 0.793 }, "starIds": [ "open-science-source-24-c2/c21", "osft-doc-1373/c43", "open-science-source-24-c2/c105", "open-science-source-43/c44", "osft-doc-0504/c19", "osft-doc-1373/c128", "osft-doc-1373/c44", "osft-doc-1373/c54", "osft-doc-1373/c599" ], "clusterMemberOrder": [ "open-science-source-43/c44", "osft-doc-1373/c44", "osft-doc-1373/c128", "osft-doc-1373/c43", "osft-doc-0504/c19", "open-science-source-24-c2/c21", "open-science-source-24-c2/c105", "osft-doc-1373/c599", "osft-doc-1373/c54" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 9, "claims": 22, "documents": 13 } }, { "id": "bu-052", "kind": "convergence", "name": "Indigenous Peoples must have authority to govern, control, and benefit from data about them", "definition": "Members assert that Indigenous Peoples hold rights (grounded in UNDRIP, OCAP, and the CARE Principles) to own, access, and control data generated by or about their communities, lands, and knowledge, and that data ecosystems should center Indigenous wellbeing, self-determination, and equitable outcomes. They define what counts as Indigenous data (administrative/scientific records plus traditional/cultural knowledge), and describe empirical tensions and failures: most such data is currently controlled by non-Indigenous institutions, scarcity/abundance paradoxes exist, and open-data sharing initiatives can conflict with Indigenous interests or exclude them. A new position belongs here if it concerns who controls, defines, or benefits from data tied to Indigenous Peoples or their territories/knowledge. It would NOT belong if it addresses generic data provenance/metadata concepts, general human decision-making biases, or unrelated identity-disambiguation issues that have no connection to Indigenous rights or governance.", "coherence": "high", "subpositions": [ { "statement": "Foundational instruments (UNDRIP, OCAP, CARE) establish Indigenous rights to control data.", "members": [ 0, 1, 4, 15, 17, 20, 21 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-26/c16", "open-science-source-26/c17", "open-science-source-30/c181", "open-science-source-26/c99", "open-science-source-26/c100", "open-science-source-26/c96", "open-science-source-26/c97" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Indigenous data is defined broadly to include institutional records and cultural knowledge.", "members": [ 3, 8, 12, 14 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-30/c41", "open-science-source-30/c44", "open-science-source-30/c45", "open-science-source-26/c59" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Data governance should center Indigenous wellbeing, ethics, and equitable outcomes.", "members": [ 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 18, 19, 22 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-26/c19", "open-science-source-24-c1/c68", "open-science-source-30/c179", "open-science-source-26/c13", "open-science-source-26/c22", "open-science-source-21/c47", "osft-doc-1612/c77", "open-science-source-26/c56" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Indigenous communities face structural barriers and tensions in data control and reuse.", "members": [ 10, 11, 13, 16, 23, 24, 25 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-26/c55", "osft-doc-1027/c63", "osft-doc-1027/c44", "open-science-source-26/c42", "open-science-source-26/c20", "open-science-source-26/c35", "open-science-source-26/c119" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" } ], "outliers": [ { "rep": "osft-doc-1373/c632", "text": "People tend to choose things that are most similar to what they already have, or things that are most similar to other choices they have.", "why": "General claim about human choice behavior, unrelated to Indigenous data governance." } ], "clusterStats": { "size": 27, "claims": 70, "documents": 9, "meanIntraCos": 0.836, "minIntraCos": 0.74 }, "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1027/c63", "open-science-source-26/c16", "open-science-source-24-c1/c68", "open-science-source-26/c19", "open-science-source-26/c17", "open-science-source-26/c20", "osft-doc-1373/c632", "open-science-source-26/c13", "open-science-source-26/c96", "osft-doc-1027/c44", "open-science-source-26/c22", "open-science-source-30/c181", "osft-doc-1612/c77", "open-science-source-30/c179", "open-science-source-21/c47", "open-science-source-26/c100", "open-science-source-26/c119", "open-science-source-26/c35", "open-science-source-26/c42", "open-science-source-26/c55", "open-science-source-26/c56", "open-science-source-26/c59", "open-science-source-26/c97", "open-science-source-26/c99", "open-science-source-30/c41", "open-science-source-30/c44", "open-science-source-30/c45" ], "clusterMemberOrder": [ "open-science-source-26/c16", "open-science-source-26/c17", "open-science-source-26/c19", "open-science-source-30/c41", "open-science-source-30/c181", "open-science-source-24-c1/c68", "open-science-source-30/c179", "open-science-source-26/c13", "open-science-source-30/c44", "open-science-source-26/c22", "open-science-source-26/c55", "osft-doc-1027/c63", "open-science-source-30/c45", "osft-doc-1027/c44", "open-science-source-26/c59", "open-science-source-26/c99", "open-science-source-26/c42", "open-science-source-26/c100", "open-science-source-21/c47", "osft-doc-1612/c77", "open-science-source-26/c96", "open-science-source-26/c97", "open-science-source-26/c56", "open-science-source-26/c20", "open-science-source-26/c35", "open-science-source-26/c119", "osft-doc-1373/c632" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 27, "claims": 70, "documents": 9 } }, { "id": "bu-053", "kind": "convergence", "name": "Fraud, gaming, and questionable practices pervade academic publishing and peer review.", "definition": "Members describe ways the scholarly publishing and peer-review system is corrupted or gamed: paper mills fabricating papers and bribing editors, deceptive publishers charging for fake peer review, questionable research practices being widespread and harmful, peer review failing to catch fraud or being misused by biased reviewers, and journal impact factors being manipulated or distorting scholarly communication. A position belongs here if it identifies a specific form of misconduct, deception, or manipulation within the publishing/review pipeline (actors: paper mills, predatory/deceptive publishers, gaming editors, biased reviewers; mechanisms: fabrication, bribery, IF gaming, false peer-review claims). It excludes positions that merely propose reforms or open-science remedies (e.g. preregistration, open peer review, alternative metrics) without describing the malpractice itself, and excludes general open-access economics not tied to deception or fraud.", "coherence": "medium", "subpositions": [ { "statement": "Paper mills fabricate papers and bribe editors to publish them.", "members": [ 3, 6 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-36/c186", "open-science-source-36/c188" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Peer review fails to detect fraud and can be abused by reviewers.", "members": [ 5, 10 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-18/c467", "open-science-source-18/c420" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Journal impact factors are manipulated and distort scholarly communication.", "members": [ 8, 9 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0108/c15", "osft-doc-0142/c1021" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Questionable research practices are widespread and cause harm.", "members": [ 2, 4 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0441/c37", "osft-doc-0441/c38" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Deceptive or predatory publishers exploit pay-to-publish open-access economics.", "members": [ 0, 1, 7 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0825/c60", "open-science-source-36/c197", "open-science-source-17/c102" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" } ], "outliers": [], "clusterStats": { "size": 11, "claims": 23, "documents": 12, "meanIntraCos": 0.833, "minIntraCos": 0.788 }, "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0108/c15", "open-science-source-17/c102", "open-science-source-18/c420", "open-science-source-18/c467", "open-science-source-36/c186", "open-science-source-36/c188", "open-science-source-36/c197", "osft-doc-0142/c1021", "osft-doc-0441/c37", "osft-doc-0441/c38", "osft-doc-0825/c60" ], "clusterMemberOrder": [ "osft-doc-0825/c60", "open-science-source-36/c197", "osft-doc-0441/c37", "open-science-source-36/c186", "osft-doc-0441/c38", "open-science-source-18/c467", "open-science-source-36/c188", "open-science-source-17/c102", "osft-doc-0108/c15", "osft-doc-0142/c1021", "open-science-source-18/c420" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 11, "claims": 23, "documents": 12 } }, { "id": "bu-054", "kind": "convergence", "name": "Scientific recognition and career success depend on metrics and prestige, not research quality.", "definition": "Members claim that researchers' career advancement, funding, and recognition are driven by quantitative metrics (impact factor, citation counts, h-index, publication numbers) and by non-merit factors such as seniority, institutional reputation, geographic location, and prior prestige or high-profile collaborations, rather than by the intrinsic quality of the research. This creates a self-reinforcing 'closed' or 'reputation' economy: those already prominent (or their junior collaborators) accumulate further visibility and advantage, while good work from less-established or peripheral scholars is overlooked, deepening inequality in whose ideas become influential. A position belongs here if it describes how existing status, metrics, or networks (rather than research merit) determine scientific recognition or opportunity. It would NOT belong if it instead proposes specific reforms to evaluation systems, discusses open-access cost barriers, or addresses unrelated aspects of scholarly communication.", "coherence": "high", "subpositions": [ { "statement": "Quantitative metrics like impact factor and h-index outweigh research quality.", "members": [ 0, 2, 4, 5 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1327/c976", "osft-doc-0441/c161", "open-science-source-13/c4", "open-science-source-43/c25" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Non-merit factors like seniority and institutional reputation predict recognition.", "members": [ 3 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0441/c104" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Prestige is self-reinforcing, advantaging already-prominent scientists and their collaborators.", "members": [ 1, 6, 7, 8, 9 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0441/c105", "osft-doc-0441/c106", "osft-doc-0441/c107", "osft-doc-1373/c530", "osft-doc-1373/c529" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" } ], "outliers": [], "clusterStats": { "size": 10, "claims": 25, "documents": 12, "meanIntraCos": 0.83, "minIntraCos": 0.79 }, "starIds": [ "open-science-source-43/c25", "osft-doc-1327/c976", "osft-doc-1373/c529", "osft-doc-0441/c161", "open-science-source-13/c4", "osft-doc-0441/c104", "osft-doc-0441/c105", "osft-doc-0441/c106", "osft-doc-0441/c107", "osft-doc-1373/c530" ], "clusterMemberOrder": [ "osft-doc-1327/c976", "osft-doc-0441/c105", "osft-doc-0441/c161", "osft-doc-0441/c104", "open-science-source-13/c4", "open-science-source-43/c25", "osft-doc-0441/c106", "osft-doc-0441/c107", "osft-doc-1373/c530", "osft-doc-1373/c529" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 10, "claims": 25, "documents": 12 } }, { "id": "bu-055", "kind": "mixed", "name": "Metadata infrastructure lacks repositories, persistence guarantees, and accountable stewardship", "definition": "Members describe gaps and risks in how scholarly metadata is stored and controlled: existing cataloging efforts (re3data, the RDA Metadata Standards Catalog WG) do not themselves host a repository for metadata records; metadata should or does remain accessible even after the underlying data are gone; and private enterprises that hold scholarly metadata answer to no community board and have no obligation to keep providing access, even for free. A new position belongs here if it concerns the persistence, hosting, or accountable control of metadata itself. Positions about funding mechanisms or pledge administration (e.g., who physically holds pooled funds) do not belong, even if adjacent to open-science infrastructure debates.", "coherence": "medium", "subpositions": [ { "statement": "Existing metadata catalogs do not themselves host repositories for records.", "members": [ 0, 1 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1507/c139", "osft-doc-1507/c137" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Metadata should remain accessible even after underlying data disappear.", "members": [ 2, 3 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0645/c91", "osft-doc-0731/c8" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Private enterprises holding scholarly metadata lack community accountability or service obligations.", "members": [ 4, 5 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1287/c5", "osft-doc-0836/c6" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" } ], "outliers": [], "clusterStats": { "size": 6, "claims": 14, "documents": 10, "meanIntraCos": 0.823, "minIntraCos": 0.752 }, "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1287/c5", "osft-doc-0645/c91", "osft-doc-0731/c8", "osft-doc-0836/c6", "osft-doc-1507/c137", "osft-doc-1507/c139" ], "clusterMemberOrder": [ "osft-doc-1507/c139", "osft-doc-1507/c137", "osft-doc-0645/c91", "osft-doc-0731/c8", "osft-doc-1287/c5", "osft-doc-0836/c6" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 6, "claims": 14, "documents": 10 } }, { "id": "bu-056", "kind": "mixed", "name": "Concrete criteria mark replication failures, while reproducibility itself is defined and valued contextually", "definition": "This cluster combines two distinct kinds of claims about replication and reproducibility. One group specifies concrete criteria for cataloguing failed or reversed effects (e.g., retraction, fraud, publication bias, non-replication, shrunken meta-analytic effect sizes) as used by a replications-and-reversals collection. The other group offers conceptual definitions of reproducibility, replicability, redoing, and reversal effects, and argues that their meaning, relevance, and applicability (including in qualitative research) depend on research context, goals, and feasibility. A new position belongs here if it either states a specific criterion for judging an effect as failed/reversed/unreliable, or defines/qualifies what reproducibility or replication means and when it applies; positions about the causes of irreproducibility or about incentives/policies to improve reproducibility would not belong.", "coherence": "low", "subpositions": [ { "statement": "Specific evidentiary criteria (fraud, retraction, bias, failed replication) flag effects as reversed/failed.", "members": [ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0441/c268", "osft-doc-0441/c265", "osft-doc-0441/c267", "osft-doc-0441/c266", "osft-doc-0441/c269", "osft-doc-0441/c270", "osft-doc-0441/c263" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Replication and reproducibility are formally defined via repeating data collection or analysis.", "members": [ 7, 8, 11, 13, 15 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-50/c31", "open-science-source-37-c1/c136", "open-science-source-37-c1/c119", "osft-doc-0050/c167", "osft-doc-0441/c262" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Reproducibility's meaning and relevance are contextual, depending on research goals and epistemic fit.", "members": [ 9, 10, 12, 14 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0050/c175", "osft-doc-0050/c161", "osft-doc-0050/c188", "osft-doc-0050/c160" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" } ], "outliers": [ { "rep": "osft-doc-0441/c263", "text": "FORRT's reversals and replications initiative aims to collate replications and reversal effects in social science.", "why": "States the initiative's general aim rather than a specific inclusion criterion like its neighbors." } ], "clusterStats": { "size": 16, "claims": 38, "documents": 11, "meanIntraCos": 0.838, "minIntraCos": 0.787 }, "starIds": [ "open-science-source-37-c1/c119", "osft-doc-0050/c188", "open-science-source-50/c31", "osft-doc-0441/c263", "open-science-source-37-c1/c136", "osft-doc-0050/c160", "osft-doc-0050/c167", "osft-doc-0050/c175", "osft-doc-0441/c262", "osft-doc-0441/c265", "osft-doc-0441/c266", "osft-doc-0441/c267", "osft-doc-0441/c268", "osft-doc-0441/c269", "osft-doc-0441/c270", "osft-doc-0050/c161" ], "clusterMemberOrder": [ "osft-doc-0441/c268", "osft-doc-0441/c265", "osft-doc-0441/c267", "osft-doc-0441/c266", "osft-doc-0441/c269", "osft-doc-0441/c270", "osft-doc-0441/c263", "open-science-source-50/c31", "open-science-source-37-c1/c136", "osft-doc-0050/c175", "osft-doc-0050/c161", "open-science-source-37-c1/c119", "osft-doc-0050/c188", "osft-doc-0050/c167", "osft-doc-0050/c160", "osft-doc-0441/c262" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 16, "claims": 38, "documents": 11 } }, { "id": "bu-057", "kind": "convergence", "name": "The Journal Impact Factor is a widely used but flawed proxy for research quality", "definition": "Members describe what the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) is — a journal-level average of citations received — and how it is widely adopted by researchers, journals, and universities as a bibliometric measure. Several members critique its limitations: it is often wrongly used as a proxy for the quality of individual articles, its properties vary by field and by the mix of article types (research papers vs. reviews) within a journal, and it restricts assessment to journal-based outputs only. A new position belongs here if it defines, describes the use of, or critiques the JIF as a metric; positions about other bibliometric indicators, or about the value/permanence of the journal article itself rather than the JIF metric, do not belong.", "coherence": "medium", "subpositions": [ { "statement": "JIF is defined as average citations per journal publication.", "members": [ 2 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-36/c327" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "JIF is widely used by researchers, journals, and universities.", "members": [ 1 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1449/c359" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "JIF is wrongly used as a surrogate for article-level quality.", "members": [ 0 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1449/c361" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "JIF's properties vary by field and article-type composition.", "members": [ 3 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0108/c14" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "JIF confines research assessment to journal-based outputs only.", "members": [ 4 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1373/c410" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" } ], "outliers": [ { "rep": "open-science-source-06/c57", "text": "The peer-reviewed journal article uniquely provides a dated version of record of the authors' views at the time of publication, and as such becomes an immutable part of the scientific record.", "why": "Concerns the journal article as an immutable version of record, not the JIF metric itself." } ], "clusterStats": { "size": 6, "claims": 17, "documents": 11, "meanIntraCos": 0.84, "minIntraCos": 0.799 }, "starIds": [ "open-science-source-36/c327", "osft-doc-1449/c359", "osft-doc-1449/c361", "open-science-source-06/c57", "osft-doc-0108/c14", "osft-doc-1373/c410" ], "clusterMemberOrder": [ "osft-doc-1449/c361", "osft-doc-1449/c359", "open-science-source-36/c327", "osft-doc-0108/c14", "osft-doc-1373/c410", "open-science-source-06/c57" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 6, "claims": 17, "documents": 11 } }, { "id": "bu-058", "kind": "mixed", "name": "Collaborative tools, practices, and processes make knowledge creation more efficient and open.", "definition": "Members claim that specific mechanisms—online collaboration tools, integrating external knowledge, modularising work, critique, and the possibility of forking—optimise and strengthen the process of creating knowledge, and that individuals should adopt concrete open-scholarship practices (reuse/remix, collaborative writing tools, RSS aggregation, executable formats). A separate sub-set of members makes narrower empirical/normative claims specifically about the UK Scholarly Communications License easing compliance with UK Open Access policy and reducing embargo and cost burdens. A new position belongs here if it names a concrete collaborative mechanism, individual open-science practice, or the UK-SCL as improving or enabling knowledge creation or open scholarly communication; it does NOT belong if it makes a general claim about open access economics, publisher policy, or funder mandates without referencing one of these specific mechanisms or tools.", "coherence": "low", "subpositions": [ { "statement": "Collaborative mechanisms (tools, external knowledge, modularity, critique, forking) optimise knowledge creation.", "members": [ 0, 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 13, 18 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1373/c336", "osft-doc-1373/c342", "osft-doc-1373/c341", "osft-doc-1373/c337", "osft-doc-1373/c339", "osft-doc-1373/c556", "osft-doc-0836/c69", "osft-doc-0836/c70" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Individuals should adopt specific open-scholarship practices and tools.", "members": [ 3, 5, 14, 15, 17 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1373/c27", "osft-doc-1373/c34", "osft-doc-1373/c21", "osft-doc-1373/c24", "osft-doc-1373/c35" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "The UK Scholarly Communications License eases OA compliance and cuts costs.", "members": [ 6, 10, 11, 12 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1373/c131", "osft-doc-1373/c127", "osft-doc-1373/c129", "osft-doc-1373/c130" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Partners should align early and identify shared values in collaboration.", "members": [ 9, 16 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1373/c556", "open-science-source-41/c235" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" } ], "outliers": [ { "rep": "osft-doc-1373/c24", "text": "Individuals should use RSS readers to aggregate news and research updates from a number of sources.", "why": "RSS aggregation is a narrow personal information-management tip, not about knowledge creation or the UK-SCL" }, { "rep": "open-science-source-41/c235", "text": "When starting discussions on a partnership, parties should align early on the overall goal.", "why": "Advice on partnership negotiation goal-setting, only loosely tied to collaborative knowledge creation" } ], "clusterStats": { "size": 19, "claims": 43, "documents": 10, "meanIntraCos": 0.804, "minIntraCos": 0.75 }, "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0836/c69", "osft-doc-1373/c127", "osft-doc-1373/c129", "osft-doc-1373/c337", "osft-doc-1373/c336", "open-science-source-04/c151", "osft-doc-1373/c341", "osft-doc-1373/c342", "open-science-source-41/c235", "osft-doc-0836/c70", "osft-doc-1373/c130", "osft-doc-1373/c131", "osft-doc-1373/c21", "osft-doc-1373/c24", "osft-doc-1373/c27", "osft-doc-1373/c339", "osft-doc-1373/c34", "osft-doc-1373/c35", "osft-doc-1373/c556" ], "clusterMemberOrder": [ "osft-doc-1373/c336", "osft-doc-1373/c342", "osft-doc-1373/c341", "osft-doc-1373/c27", "open-science-source-04/c151", "osft-doc-1373/c34", "osft-doc-1373/c131", "osft-doc-1373/c337", "osft-doc-1373/c339", "osft-doc-1373/c556", "osft-doc-1373/c127", "osft-doc-1373/c129", "osft-doc-1373/c130", "osft-doc-0836/c69", "osft-doc-1373/c21", "osft-doc-1373/c24", "open-science-source-41/c235", "osft-doc-1373/c35", "osft-doc-0836/c70" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 19, "claims": 43, "documents": 10 } }, { "id": "bu-059", "kind": "mixed", "name": "Extreme or oversimplified approaches — total freedom, rigid uniformity, or quick fixes — fail policy design.", "definition": "Members warn that open science policy cannot rely on a single simple lever: giving researchers unlimited choice risks inertia, imposing one uniform rule across all disciplines is usually unsuccessful, and scrapping measurement/metrics entirely harms scientific progress even though metrics should not dominate practice either. A related strand cautions that easy-seeming answers are not automatically the correct ones. A new position belongs here if it argues that a simple, extreme, or uniform design choice (full freedom, full uniformity, no metrics, an 'easy' fix) is inadequate for research policy; it does NOT belong if it argues for a specific substantive policy content (e.g., who funds APCs, what a mandate should require) rather than cautioning about the form/complexity of the solution itself.", "coherence": "medium", "subpositions": [ { "statement": "Too much researcher choice risks no real behavior change.", "members": [ 0, 3 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1373/c630", "osft-doc-1373/c631" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "One-size-fits-all policies are usually inappropriate and unsuccessful.", "members": [ 1, 2 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1327/c439", "osft-doc-1449/c100" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Eliminating research metrics entirely harms scientific progress.", "members": [ 4 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1373/c406" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Metrics should not dominate or drive research practice.", "members": [ 6 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0142/c650" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Easy solutions are not necessarily correct.", "members": [ 5 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1327/c562" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" } ], "outliers": [], "clusterStats": { "size": 7, "claims": 15, "documents": 8, "meanIntraCos": 0.811, "minIntraCos": 0.763 }, "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1373/c630", "osft-doc-1327/c439", "osft-doc-1449/c100", "osft-doc-1373/c631", "osft-doc-0142/c650", "osft-doc-1327/c562", "osft-doc-1373/c406" ], "clusterMemberOrder": [ "osft-doc-1373/c630", "osft-doc-1327/c439", "osft-doc-1449/c100", "osft-doc-1373/c631", "osft-doc-1373/c406", "osft-doc-1327/c562", "osft-doc-0142/c650" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 7, "claims": 15, "documents": 8 } }, { "id": "bu-060", "kind": "convergence", "name": "Infrastructure organisations should not act in self-interest but serve stakeholders and communities via decentralised, community-driven governance.", "definition": "Members hold that infrastructure organisations must constrain their own institutional power: they should not lobby for regulation that entrenches their position, should not conflate self-interest with stakeholder interest, should let the community rather than infrastructure providers drive regulatory change, should be decentralised, and should federate only for genuine trust reasons rather than political convenience. The recurring actor is the infrastructure organisation itself, and the recurring mechanism is restraint on its self-serving political or structural behaviour in favour of community/stakeholder control. This excludes positions about funding models, access mechanisms, or technical standards that do not concern the governance behaviour or self-interest of infrastructure providers.", "coherence": "high", "subpositions": [ { "statement": "Infrastructure organisations should not lobby to entrench their own position.", "members": [ 0 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-09/c9" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "The community, not providers, should drive regulatory change.", "members": [ 1 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0151/c44" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Providers must not conflate self-service with stakeholder service.", "members": [ 2 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0836/c22" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Public-interest infrastructure should be decentralised.", "members": [ 3 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-10/c185" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Federation should address trust directly, not for political convenience.", "members": [ 4 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0836/c95" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" } ], "outliers": [], "clusterStats": { "size": 5, "claims": 15, "documents": 10, "meanIntraCos": 0.847, "minIntraCos": 0.826 }, "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0151/c44", "open-science-source-09/c9", "open-science-source-10/c185", "osft-doc-0836/c22", "osft-doc-0836/c95" ], "clusterMemberOrder": [ "open-science-source-09/c9", "osft-doc-0151/c44", "osft-doc-0836/c22", "open-science-source-10/c185", "osft-doc-0836/c95" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 5, "claims": 15, "documents": 10 } }, { "id": "bu-061", "kind": "mixed", "name": "Passionate individual champions, more than institutions, drive open scholarship's biggest successes", "definition": "The core claim is that passionate, persevering individual champions are a major, often decisive, force behind open scholarship's policy and adoption successes, and that their impact grows when shared through networks, collaborations, and mentorship. Around this core sit several unrelated claims: a generic definition of what a \"movement\" is, an observation that crisis-driven discussion has spawned transparency initiatives, a note that a specific framework (POSI) has been taken up and discussed by others, and claims about private enterprise's strengths (innovation, customer focus). A new position belongs here only if it credits identifiable individuals or their networks/mentorship for open-scholarship progress; claims about organizational definitions, specific named frameworks, or business-sector strengths belong to other themes even if loosely topic-adjacent.", "coherence": "low", "subpositions": [ { "statement": "Champions achieve major changes almost single-handedly through influence.", "members": [ 1, 2 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1673/c277", "osft-doc-1459/c499" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Champions' value multiplies via networks, collaboration, and mentorship.", "members": [ 0 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1373/c462" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "A movement is a group advancing shared ideas together.", "members": [ 3 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1373/c226" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Crisis discussions spawned many transparency-themed initiatives as a movement.", "members": [ 6 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0441/c42" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "POSI has been built upon and discussed by the community.", "members": [ 5 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0151/c12" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Private enterprise's strengths include innovation and customer focus.", "members": [ 4, 7 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0836/c7", "osft-doc-0836/c8" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" } ], "outliers": [ { "rep": "osft-doc-1373/c226", "text": "A movement is a group of people working together to advance their shared political, social, or artistic ideas.", "why": "A generic definition of 'movement', unrelated to champions." }, { "rep": "osft-doc-0836/c7", "text": "Private enterprise has the strength of innovation.", "why": "About private-enterprise innovation, not champions or movements." }, { "rep": "osft-doc-0151/c12", "text": "POSI has been built upon and discussed by others in the community.", "why": "A specific claim about POSI's uptake, not about champions." }, { "rep": "osft-doc-0441/c42", "text": "Discussions about a crisis have turned into a movement with many transparency-themed initiatives being formed in recent years.", "why": "About crisis-driven transparency initiatives, not individual champions." }, { "rep": "osft-doc-0836/c8", "text": "Private enterprise has the strength of customer focus.", "why": "About private-enterprise customer focus, unrelated to the core claim." } ], "clusterStats": { "size": 8, "claims": 21, "documents": 9, "meanIntraCos": 0.796, "minIntraCos": 0.754 }, "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1459/c499", "osft-doc-1373/c226", "osft-doc-1373/c462", "osft-doc-1673/c277", "osft-doc-0151/c12", "osft-doc-0441/c42", "osft-doc-0836/c7", "osft-doc-0836/c8" ], "clusterMemberOrder": [ "osft-doc-1373/c462", "osft-doc-1673/c277", "osft-doc-1459/c499", "osft-doc-1373/c226", "osft-doc-0836/c7", "osft-doc-0151/c12", "osft-doc-0441/c42", "osft-doc-0836/c8" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 8, "claims": 21, "documents": 9 } }, { "id": "bu-062", "kind": "convergence", "name": "Crossing planetary boundaries is driving catastrophic, cascading crises that demand urgent action.", "definition": "Members assert that human activity has pushed Earth past critical ecological tipping points or planetary boundaries, and that this destabilization will cascade into severe social and geopolitical harms — armed conflict, pandemics, mass migration, ecosystem collapse, and breakdown of food systems and supply chains — constituting an existential threat that requires immediate, far-reaching action. It covers claims about the physical/ecological state of the planet (boundaries, tipping points, climate emergency) as well as the downstream human consequences (health, security, migration, economic disruption) attributed to that state. It would NOT cover positions about specific policy instruments, institutions, or governance mechanisms for addressing environmental or social challenges, nor general urgency statements unconnected to planetary/ecological destabilization as the cause.", "coherence": "high", "subpositions": [ { "statement": "Ecological destabilization will trigger conflict, pandemics, and mass migration.", "members": [ 0, 1, 3, 7 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0825/c9", "osft-doc-0825/c10", "osft-doc-0825/c11", "osft-doc-0825/c8" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Earth has crossed critical tipping points and planetary boundaries.", "members": [ 2, 4, 5, 10 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0825/c6", "osft-doc-0114/c4", "osft-doc-0825/c7", "osft-doc-0825/c5" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "The climate emergency is existential and demands urgent action.", "members": [ 6, 8, 9 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0114/c2", "osft-doc-0114/c3", "open-science-source-03/c1" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Ecosystem destabilization threatens health more than COVID-19 did.", "members": [ 11 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0825/c4" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" } ], "outliers": [], "clusterStats": { "size": 12, "claims": 25, "documents": 7, "meanIntraCos": 0.848, "minIntraCos": 0.785 }, "starIds": [ "open-science-source-03/c1", "osft-doc-0114/c2", "osft-doc-0114/c3", "osft-doc-0114/c4", "osft-doc-0825/c10", "osft-doc-0825/c11", "osft-doc-0825/c4", "osft-doc-0825/c5", "osft-doc-0825/c6", "osft-doc-0825/c7", "osft-doc-0825/c8", "osft-doc-0825/c9" ], "clusterMemberOrder": [ "osft-doc-0825/c9", "osft-doc-0825/c10", "osft-doc-0825/c6", "osft-doc-0825/c11", "osft-doc-0114/c4", "osft-doc-0825/c7", "osft-doc-0114/c2", "osft-doc-0825/c8", "osft-doc-0114/c3", "open-science-source-03/c1", "osft-doc-0825/c5", "osft-doc-0825/c4" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 12, "claims": 25, "documents": 7 } }, { "id": "bu-063", "kind": "convergence", "name": "The PDB is a single, standardized, validated global archive for macromolecular structure data.", "definition": "Members describe the Protein Data Bank (PDB) as a unified international archive, governed by the wwPDB partnership with RCSB PDB as Core Archive Keeper, that stores 3D atomic coordinates of proteins, nucleic acids and their complexes together with the experimental data and metadata behind them. They detail the operational machinery that makes this archive authoritative: standardized controlled vocabularies (PDBx/mmCIF), the OneDep deposition/validation/biocuration pipeline, per-entry validation reports, weekly update procedures, and mandatory deposition as a condition of journal publication. They also assert the archive's broad reach — serving researchers, educators, patent applicants, and multiple scientific fields worldwide, distributed via FTP from partner sites. A position belongs here if it characterizes the PDB's identity, governance, data content, or deposition/validation infrastructure; it would NOT belong if it addresses open-access policy in general, funder mandates unrelated to structural data, or other databases/resources outside the wwPDB system.", "coherence": "high", "subpositions": [ { "statement": "wwPDB and RCSB PDB jointly govern and keep the PDB archive.", "members": [ 0, 8, 9 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-16-c2/c1", "open-science-source-16-c1/c100", "open-science-source-16-c4/c3" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "The archive holds atomic coordinates plus experimental data and metadata.", "members": [ 4, 7, 10, 17 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-16-c1/c2", "open-science-source-16-c1/c54", "open-science-source-16-c1/c10", "open-science-source-16-c1/c40" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "OneDep standardizes deposition, validation, and biocuration of PDB entries.", "members": [ 2, 5, 6, 14, 18, 20, 21 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-16-c3/c34", "open-science-source-16-c3/c36", "open-science-source-16-c1/c61", "open-science-source-16-c4/c57", "open-science-source-16-c1/c143", "open-science-source-16-c1/c101", "open-science-source-16-c1/c125" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Standardized data dictionaries link PDB entries to other data resources.", "members": [ 12, 13 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-16-c1/c106", "open-science-source-16-c1/c165" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "The PDB has broad, growing impact across science, medicine, and patents.", "members": [ 1, 3, 11, 15, 16, 19 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-16-c4/c144", "open-science-source-16-c3/c18", "open-science-source-16-c4/c112", "open-science-source-16-c3/c3", "open-science-source-16-c3/c27", "open-science-source-16-c3/c24" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" } ], "outliers": [ { "rep": "open-science-source-16-c3/c24", "text": "PDB data impacts patent applications.", "why": "Notes patent-application impact, a narrower downstream effect rather than archive description." }, { "rep": "open-science-source-16-c3/c27", "text": "PDB-101 materials illustrate how PDB data help explain fundamental biology, biomedicine, energy sciences, and biotechnology.", "why": "Describes educational outreach materials (PDB-101), not the archive's data/governance itself." } ], "clusterStats": { "size": 22, "claims": 50, "documents": 5, "meanIntraCos": 0.839, "minIntraCos": 0.786 }, "starIds": [ "open-science-source-16-c2/c1", "open-science-source-16-c1/c100", "open-science-source-16-c1/c101", "open-science-source-16-c3/c36", "open-science-source-16-c4/c112", "open-science-source-16-c4/c3", "open-science-source-16-c1/c10", "open-science-source-16-c1/c106", "open-science-source-16-c1/c125", "open-science-source-16-c1/c143", "open-science-source-16-c1/c165", "open-science-source-16-c1/c2", "open-science-source-16-c1/c40", "open-science-source-16-c1/c54", "open-science-source-16-c1/c61", "open-science-source-16-c3/c18", "open-science-source-16-c3/c24", "open-science-source-16-c3/c27", "open-science-source-16-c3/c3", "open-science-source-16-c3/c34", "open-science-source-16-c4/c144", "open-science-source-16-c4/c57" ], "clusterMemberOrder": [ "open-science-source-16-c2/c1", "open-science-source-16-c4/c144", "open-science-source-16-c3/c34", "open-science-source-16-c3/c18", "open-science-source-16-c1/c2", "open-science-source-16-c3/c36", "open-science-source-16-c1/c61", "open-science-source-16-c1/c54", "open-science-source-16-c1/c100", "open-science-source-16-c4/c3", "open-science-source-16-c1/c10", "open-science-source-16-c4/c112", "open-science-source-16-c1/c106", "open-science-source-16-c1/c165", "open-science-source-16-c4/c57", "open-science-source-16-c3/c3", "open-science-source-16-c3/c27", "open-science-source-16-c1/c40", "open-science-source-16-c1/c143", "open-science-source-16-c3/c24", "open-science-source-16-c1/c101", "open-science-source-16-c1/c125" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 22, "claims": 50, "documents": 5 } }, { "id": "bu-065", "kind": "convergence", "name": "CARE and OCAP define Indigenous data governance and must mature on Indigenous terms", "definition": "Members enumerate the components of the CARE Principles (Collective benefit, Authority to control, Responsibility, Ethics) and the OCAP principles (ownership, control, possession, access) as frameworks for Indigenous data sovereignty, and characterize CARE as a novel, people- and purpose-oriented attempt to embed collective rights within open-science practice. Other members hold that implementation criteria for CARE are still unsettled, that full adoption may therefore be delayed, and that space must be left for these principles to be designed and matured within the Indigenous environments from which they originate rather than being co-opted elsewhere. A position belongs here if it defines or characterizes CARE/OCAP as Indigenous data governance frameworks or argues for cautious, community-led development of CARE; it does not belong if it addresses unrelated identity or trust infrastructures such as researcher identifiers.", "coherence": "medium", "subpositions": [ { "statement": "CARE Principles consist of four named elements.", "members": [ 0, 1, 2, 6 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-26/c10", "open-science-source-26/c9", "open-science-source-26/c11", "open-science-source-26/c8" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "OCAP principles consist of ownership, control, possession, access.", "members": [ 3, 4, 5, 8 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-26/c92", "open-science-source-26/c93", "open-science-source-26/c95", "open-science-source-26/c94" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "CARE is a novel, people-oriented framework for collective rights.", "members": [ 7, 9 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-30/c3", "open-science-source-26/c128" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "CARE implementation is unfinished and should not be rushed or co-opted.", "members": [ 10, 11, 12, 13 ], "starIds": [ "open-science-source-26/c129", "open-science-source-26/c130", "open-science-source-26/c111", "open-science-source-26/c131" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" } ], "outliers": [ { "rep": "osft-doc-0836/c97", "text": "The ORCID principles represented the first attempt to address the issue of community trust.", "why": "Concerns ORCID and researcher identity/trust, unrelated to CARE/OCAP Indigenous data governance." } ], "clusterStats": { "size": 15, "claims": 33, "documents": 5, "meanIntraCos": 0.846, "minIntraCos": 0.778 }, "starIds": [ "open-science-source-30/c3", "open-science-source-26/c10", "open-science-source-26/c11", "open-science-source-26/c111", "open-science-source-26/c128", "open-science-source-26/c129", "open-science-source-26/c130", "open-science-source-26/c131", "open-science-source-26/c8", "open-science-source-26/c9", "open-science-source-26/c92", "open-science-source-26/c93", "open-science-source-26/c94", "open-science-source-26/c95", "osft-doc-0836/c97" ], "clusterMemberOrder": [ "open-science-source-26/c10", "open-science-source-26/c9", "open-science-source-26/c11", "open-science-source-26/c92", "open-science-source-26/c93", "open-science-source-26/c95", "open-science-source-26/c8", "open-science-source-30/c3", "open-science-source-26/c94", "open-science-source-26/c128", "open-science-source-26/c129", "open-science-source-26/c130", "open-science-source-26/c111", "open-science-source-26/c131", "osft-doc-0836/c97" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 15, "claims": 33, "documents": 5 } }, { "id": "bu-066", "kind": "convergence", "name": "CoreTrustSeal, Nestor, and ISO 16363 form a tiered certification system for trusted digital repositories.", "definition": "Members describe and compare three certification standards for trusted digital repositories — CoreTrustSeal (basic/level 1), Nestor (extended/level 2, a German initiative based on DIN 31644), and ISO 16363 (formal/level 3, based on the TRAC checklist) — detailing their relative rigor and the specific domains each covers (organizational, financial, legal, infrastructure, risk management, and FAIR-data criteria). It also covers efforts, such as FAIRsFAIR, that build on or augment these certifications. It does NOT include general claims about data or metadata standards for identifying, describing, or sharing digital objects that are unrelated to repository trustworthiness certification.", "coherence": "medium", "subpositions": [ { "statement": "CoreTrustSeal is a basic-level certification meeting core FAIR repository criteria.", "members": [ 2, 3, 6, 7 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0963/c42", "osft-doc-1507/c54", "osft-doc-1507/c56", "osft-doc-1686/c94" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Nestor is a German extended-level certification covering organizational, financial, and legal concerns.", "members": [ 0, 5, 11, 13, 14 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1507/c64", "osft-doc-1507/c59", "osft-doc-1507/c60", "osft-doc-1507/c62", "osft-doc-1507/c61" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "ISO 16363 is a formal-level certification based on TRAC covering infrastructure and risk.", "members": [ 1, 4, 8, 12 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1507/c75", "osft-doc-1507/c69", "osft-doc-1507/c74", "osft-doc-1507/c73" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" } ], "outliers": [ { "rep": "osft-doc-0050/c23", "text": "Standards for identifying, describing, interlinking and sharing digital objects are essential.", "why": "General claim about digital-object standards, not repository certification" }, { "rep": "osft-doc-0050/c24", "text": "Standards for identifying, describing, interlinking and sharing digital objects are often domain specific.", "why": "General claim about domain-specificity of standards, not about certification levels" } ], "clusterStats": { "size": 15, "claims": 31, "documents": 5, "meanIntraCos": 0.822, "minIntraCos": 0.759 }, "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1686/c94", "osft-doc-0050/c23", "osft-doc-0050/c24", "osft-doc-0963/c42", "osft-doc-1507/c54", "osft-doc-1507/c56", "osft-doc-1507/c59", "osft-doc-1507/c60", "osft-doc-1507/c61", "osft-doc-1507/c62", "osft-doc-1507/c64", "osft-doc-1507/c69", "osft-doc-1507/c73", "osft-doc-1507/c74", "osft-doc-1507/c75" ], "clusterMemberOrder": [ "osft-doc-1507/c64", "osft-doc-1507/c75", "osft-doc-0963/c42", "osft-doc-1507/c54", "osft-doc-1507/c69", "osft-doc-1507/c59", "osft-doc-1507/c56", "osft-doc-1686/c94", "osft-doc-1507/c74", "osft-doc-0050/c23", "osft-doc-0050/c24", "osft-doc-1507/c60", "osft-doc-1507/c73", "osft-doc-1507/c62", "osft-doc-1507/c61" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 15, "claims": 31, "documents": 5 } }, { "id": "bu-067", "kind": "mixed", "name": "FORRT provides a suite of curated tools supporting open and reproducible research education.", "definition": "Members describe the features and purposes of several distinct educational resources built by FORRT: a searchable, community-curated, FAIR-compliant database of resources; a crowdsourced glossary that clarifies competing terminology; a self-assessment tool that lets educators gauge and track their adoption of open and reproducible practices; a topic-cluster framework (covering areas like FAIR data, preregistration, replication, and academic culture) used to organize these resources; an adaptable teaching syllabus with readings and assignments; and article summaries with abstracts, takeaways, and quotes. A new position belongs here if it describes what one of these specific FORRT tools contains, how it works, or how it can be used or adapted. It would NOT belong if it instead argues for or explains an open-science practice itself (e.g., why preregistration improves transparency) rather than describing FORRT's resource for teaching or cataloguing that practice.", "coherence": "high", "subpositions": [ { "statement": "The curated database organizes, enriches, and is searchable and contributable by the community.", "members": [ 8, 9, 15, 19, 20, 28, 42, 43 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1878/c210", "osft-doc-0441/c216", "osft-doc-0441/c215", "osft-doc-0441/c220", "osft-doc-1878/c213", "osft-doc-0441/c227", "osft-doc-0441/c219", "osft-doc-0441/c223" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "The glossary crowdsources consensus definitions and clarifies competing terminology.", "members": [ 3, 12, 24, 26, 34, 41 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0441/c229", "osft-doc-0441/c233", "osft-doc-0441/c235", "osft-doc-0441/c236", "osft-doc-0441/c234", "osft-doc-0441/c237" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "The self-assessment tool measures and reports educators' adoption of open practices.", "members": [ 2, 4, 10, 13, 16, 17, 21, 29, 35, 36, 45 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0441/c207", "osft-doc-0441/c193", "osft-doc-0441/c200", "osft-doc-0441/c196", "osft-doc-1878/c192", "osft-doc-0441/c202", "osft-doc-1878/c193", "osft-doc-0441/c197", "osft-doc-0441/c204", "osft-doc-0441/c206", "osft-doc-0441/c198" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "The cluster framework categorizes open-scholarship topics into named knowledge areas.", "members": [ 0, 1, 5, 6, 7, 14, 18, 23, 27 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0441/c222", "osft-doc-0441/c272", "osft-doc-0441/c189", "osft-doc-0441/c185", "osft-doc-0441/c187", "osft-doc-0441/c188", "osft-doc-0441/c186", "osft-doc-0441/c191", "osft-doc-0441/c190" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "The syllabus offers adaptable weekly readings and assignments for courses.", "members": [ 1, 22, 31, 32, 37, 40 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0441/c272", "osft-doc-0441/c279", "osft-doc-0441/c274", "osft-doc-0441/c275", "osft-doc-0441/c278", "osft-doc-0441/c277" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Article summaries provide abstracts, takeaways, and quotes, drafted and peer-reviewed by members.", "members": [ 11, 25, 30, 33, 39, 44 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0441/c241", "osft-doc-0441/c238", "osft-doc-0441/c239", "osft-doc-0441/c240", "osft-doc-0441/c246", "osft-doc-0441/c244" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" } ], "outliers": [], "clusterStats": { "size": 46, "claims": 102, "documents": 3, "meanIntraCos": 0.832, "minIntraCos": 0.754 }, "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0441/c233", "osft-doc-1878/c193", "osft-doc-1878/c210", "osft-doc-0441/c216", "osft-doc-0441/c229", "osft-doc-0441/c272", "osft-doc-0441/c275", "osft-doc-0441/c193", "osft-doc-0441/c222", "osft-doc-0441/c235", "osft-doc-0441/c185", "osft-doc-0441/c186", "osft-doc-0441/c187", "osft-doc-0441/c188", "osft-doc-0441/c189", "osft-doc-0441/c190", "osft-doc-0441/c191", "osft-doc-0441/c196", "osft-doc-0441/c197", "osft-doc-0441/c198", "osft-doc-0441/c200", "osft-doc-0441/c202", "osft-doc-0441/c204", "osft-doc-0441/c206", "osft-doc-0441/c207", "osft-doc-0441/c215", "osft-doc-0441/c219", "osft-doc-0441/c220", "osft-doc-0441/c223", "osft-doc-0441/c227", "osft-doc-0441/c234", "osft-doc-0441/c236", "osft-doc-0441/c237", "osft-doc-0441/c238", "osft-doc-0441/c239", "osft-doc-0441/c240", "osft-doc-0441/c241", "osft-doc-0441/c244", "osft-doc-0441/c246", "osft-doc-0441/c256", "osft-doc-0441/c274", "osft-doc-0441/c277", "osft-doc-0441/c278", "osft-doc-0441/c279", "osft-doc-1878/c192", "osft-doc-1878/c213" ], "clusterMemberOrder": [ "osft-doc-0441/c222", "osft-doc-0441/c272", "osft-doc-0441/c207", "osft-doc-0441/c229", "osft-doc-0441/c193", "osft-doc-0441/c189", "osft-doc-0441/c185", "osft-doc-0441/c187", "osft-doc-1878/c210", "osft-doc-0441/c216", "osft-doc-0441/c200", "osft-doc-0441/c241", "osft-doc-0441/c233", "osft-doc-0441/c196", "osft-doc-0441/c188", "osft-doc-0441/c215", "osft-doc-1878/c192", "osft-doc-0441/c202", "osft-doc-0441/c186", "osft-doc-0441/c220", "osft-doc-1878/c213", "osft-doc-1878/c193", "osft-doc-0441/c279", "osft-doc-0441/c191", "osft-doc-0441/c235", "osft-doc-0441/c238", "osft-doc-0441/c236", "osft-doc-0441/c190", "osft-doc-0441/c227", "osft-doc-0441/c197", "osft-doc-0441/c239", "osft-doc-0441/c274", "osft-doc-0441/c275", "osft-doc-0441/c240", "osft-doc-0441/c234", "osft-doc-0441/c204", "osft-doc-0441/c206", "osft-doc-0441/c278", "osft-doc-0441/c256", "osft-doc-0441/c246", "osft-doc-0441/c277", "osft-doc-0441/c237", "osft-doc-0441/c219", "osft-doc-0441/c223", "osft-doc-0441/c244", "osft-doc-0441/c198" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 46, "claims": 102, "documents": 3 } }, { "id": "bu-068", "kind": "convergence", "name": "Active researcher-scholars, teaching science as an ongoing uncertain process, are the most effective educators", "definition": "Members claim that scholars who are themselves active practitioners of research—familiar with current literature, methods, and open scholarship debates—are uniquely positioned to teach science effectively, because they can portray it as a continuous, uncertain process of discovery rather than a fixed set of facts. This \"principled teaching\" gives students hands-on experience with reproducibility, replication, pre-registration, and analytical flexibility, which in turn builds their curiosity, critical thinking, independence, and trust in science. It excludes claims about the mechanics or content of open-science practices themselves (e.g., what pre-registration requires) and excludes claims about publishing, funding, or infrastructure; the focus here is specifically on the pedagogical role and responsibility of researcher-educators and its effects on students.", "coherence": "high", "subpositions": [ { "statement": "Active researcher-scholars are best positioned to be inspiring, effective educators.", "members": [ 3, 4, 10, 13, 16, 19, 21, 23, 25, 28 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0441/c181", "osft-doc-0441/c63", "osft-doc-0441/c59", "osft-doc-0441/c62", "osft-doc-1878/c181", "osft-doc-0441/c60", "osft-doc-0441/c57", "osft-doc-0441/c149", "osft-doc-0441/c17", "osft-doc-0441/c210" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Science should be taught as a continuous, uncertain learning process, not fixed facts.", "members": [ 1, 6, 9, 17, 22, 27 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0441/c152", "osft-doc-0441/c127", "osft-doc-0441/c151", "osft-doc-0441/c150", "osft-doc-0441/c135", "osft-doc-0441/c136" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Hands-on practice with reproducibility, replication, and pre-registration builds student competence.", "members": [ 0, 7, 14, 18 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0441/c142", "osft-doc-1878/c138", "osft-doc-0441/c322", "osft-doc-0441/c348" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" }, { "statement": "Principled teaching cultivates students' curiosity, critical thinking, and research independence.", "members": [ 2, 5, 8, 11, 12, 15, 20, 26 ], "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0441/c340", "osft-doc-0441/c342", "osft-doc-0441/c339", "osft-doc-0441/c61", "osft-doc-0441/c341", "osft-doc-0441/c320", "osft-doc-0441/c343", "osft-doc-0441/c95" ], "validationStatus": "original_model_naming_not_independently_validated" } ], "outliers": [ { "rep": "osft-doc-0441/c208", "text": "This overview may elucidate the factors behind the emergence, development, and sustainability of scientific integrity, principled teaching, and open education.", "why": "Meta-statement about the source document itself, not a substantive teaching claim." } ], "clusterStats": { "size": 29, "claims": 59, "documents": 2, "meanIntraCos": 0.839, "minIntraCos": 0.782 }, "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0441/c127", "osft-doc-0441/c142", "osft-doc-1878/c138", "osft-doc-0441/c135", "osft-doc-0441/c136", "osft-doc-0441/c149", "osft-doc-0441/c150", "osft-doc-0441/c151", "osft-doc-0441/c152", "osft-doc-0441/c17", "osft-doc-0441/c181", "osft-doc-0441/c208", "osft-doc-0441/c210", "osft-doc-0441/c320", "osft-doc-0441/c322", "osft-doc-0441/c339", "osft-doc-0441/c340", "osft-doc-0441/c341", "osft-doc-0441/c342", "osft-doc-0441/c343", "osft-doc-0441/c348", "osft-doc-0441/c57", "osft-doc-0441/c59", "osft-doc-0441/c60", "osft-doc-0441/c61", "osft-doc-0441/c62", "osft-doc-0441/c63", "osft-doc-0441/c95", "osft-doc-1878/c181" ], "clusterMemberOrder": [ "osft-doc-0441/c142", "osft-doc-0441/c152", "osft-doc-0441/c340", "osft-doc-0441/c181", "osft-doc-0441/c63", "osft-doc-0441/c342", "osft-doc-0441/c127", "osft-doc-1878/c138", "osft-doc-0441/c339", "osft-doc-0441/c151", "osft-doc-0441/c59", "osft-doc-0441/c61", "osft-doc-0441/c341", "osft-doc-0441/c62", "osft-doc-0441/c322", "osft-doc-0441/c320", "osft-doc-1878/c181", "osft-doc-0441/c150", "osft-doc-0441/c348", "osft-doc-0441/c60", "osft-doc-0441/c343", "osft-doc-0441/c57", "osft-doc-0441/c135", "osft-doc-0441/c149", "osft-doc-0441/c208", "osft-doc-0441/c17", "osft-doc-0441/c95", "osft-doc-0441/c136", "osft-doc-0441/c210" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 29, "claims": 59, "documents": 2 } } ] }