{ "route": "topdown-all", "sourceBuiltAt": "2026-09-04T15:41:33.228Z", "rule": "Each claim group receives at most one theme: 13 predefined themes are applied first, 10 further predefined themes to unassigned groups, then 48 corpus-derived themes to the remainder.", "interpretation": "Detected thematic membership, including direct components and premises; divergence themes admit either side. These are not validated counts of documents asserting the full displayed proposition.", "definitionProvenance": "judgedName and judgedDefinition preserve the wording used for classification; name and definition contain display wording.", "themes": [ { "id": "T1-openness-serves-science", "kind": "convergence", "name": "Openness serves better science", "definition": "Openness is valued for what it lets people do: inspect, test, reuse, correct, and build on research. Claims about what openness achieves — quality, trust, collaboration, efficiency, speed, inclusion, public good — and that any openness requirement should be judged by the scientific purpose it serves.", "route": "predefined-primary", "judgedName": "Openness serves better science", "judgedDefinition": "Openness is not an end in itself but a means: it serves equity, quality, usability, sustainability, and the public good by permitting inspection, testing, reuse, correction, and extension of research. Positions that assert what openness achieves for science or society (trust, quality, collaboration, efficiency, acceleration, inclusion) or that openness should be judged by the scientific purpose it serves.", "judgedDefinitionVersion": "topdown-v1", "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0441/c30", "open-science-source-19/c55", "osft-doc-0777/c21", "osft-doc-1283/c15", "open-science-source-37-c1/c172", "open-science-source-24-c1/c4", "open-science-source-24-c8/c3", "osft-doc-0411/c6", "open-science-source-03/c13", "open-science-source-27/c32", "open-science-source-19/c46", "osft-doc-0002/c10", "osft-doc-1449/c407", "osft-doc-1646/c9", "osft-doc-1373/c234", "osft-doc-1283/c11", "open-science-source-34/c9", "osft-doc-1449/c478", "osft-doc-1869/c225", "open-science-source-03/c143", "open-science-source-19/c52", "open-science-source-22/c3", "osft-doc-0825/c21", "osft-doc-0825/c32", "osft-doc-1327/c553", "osft-doc-1449/c413", "osft-doc-1737/c10", "open-science-source-03/c15", "osft-doc-0633/c39", "osft-doc-1373/c324", "open-science-source-19/c51", "osft-doc-0441/c20", "osft-doc-1702/c73", "osft-doc-0441/c25", "open-science-source-04/c9", "open-science-source-15-c2/c111", "open-science-source-03/c134", "open-science-source-24-c1/c12", "open-science-source-24-c5/c29", "open-science-source-24-c8/c50", "open-science-source-02/c42", "open-science-source-25/c8", "open-science-source-37-c2/c146", "osft-doc-1646/c13", "osft-doc-1869/c221", "osft-doc-1673/c276", "osft-doc-1373/c465", "osft-doc-0504/c12", "open-science-source-21/c10", "open-science-source-03/c14", "open-science-source-21/c4", "osft-doc-1869/c188", "osft-doc-1869/c222", "osft-doc-0002/c8", "osft-doc-1327/c16", "osft-doc-1459/c14", "osft-doc-1646/c4", "open-science-source-34/c21", "osft-doc-1459/c362", "osft-doc-1878/c29", "open-science-source-25/c10", "open-science-source-03/c123", "open-science-source-21/c26", "open-science-source-24-c9/c47", "open-science-source-04/c137", "osft-doc-1031/c23", "open-science-source-03/c105", "open-science-source-03/c60", "open-science-source-24-c9/c46", "open-science-source-37-c1/c107", "open-science-source-45/c141", "osft-doc-0114/c14", "osft-doc-0441/c73", "osft-doc-0825/c38", "osft-doc-0975/c13", "osft-doc-1031/c26", "osft-doc-1193/c86", "osft-doc-1195/c1", "osft-doc-1373/c10", "osft-doc-1373/c161", "osft-doc-1373/c297", "osft-doc-1373/c399", "osft-doc-0645/c119", "open-science-source-20/c33", "open-science-source-03/c18", "open-science-source-05/c26", "open-science-source-20/c28", "osft-doc-0730/c45", "osft-doc-1373/c349", "osft-doc-1878/c303", "open-science-source-16-c4/c112", "osft-doc-1878/c326", "osft-doc-1459/c352", "osft-doc-0002/c14", "open-science-source-37-c1/c171", "osft-doc-1213/c6", "osft-doc-1327/c650", "open-science-source-03/c126", "osft-doc-0975/c34", "osft-doc-1673/c132", "open-science-source-21/c27", "open-science-source-24-c1/c13", "osft-doc-0002/c9", "osft-doc-0411/c60", "osft-doc-1124/c12", "osft-doc-1449/c415", "osft-doc-1449/c47", "osft-doc-1869/c223", "osft-doc-1459/c351", "open-science-source-42/c290", "osft-doc-0002/c6", "osft-doc-1253/c13", "open-science-source-03/c19", "open-science-source-03/c33", "open-science-source-03/c9", "open-science-source-04/c151", "open-science-source-24-c9/c16", "open-science-source-37-c2/c145", "osft-doc-0114/c7", "osft-doc-0504/c6", "osft-doc-1031/c24", "osft-doc-1124/c3", "osft-doc-1327/c617", "osft-doc-1398/c25", "osft-doc-1449/c50", "osft-doc-1702/c54", "osft-doc-1878/c34", "osft-doc-1878/c55", "open-science-source-03/c35", "open-science-source-24-c9/c43", "open-science-source-42/c881", "osft-doc-0441/c27", "osft-doc-0441/c329", "osft-doc-0825/c26", "osft-doc-0971/c2", "osft-doc-1373/c470", "osft-doc-1702/c53", "open-science-source-02/c39", "open-science-source-02/c41", "open-science-source-03/c10", "open-science-source-03/c121", "open-science-source-03/c16", "open-science-source-03/c42", "open-science-source-04/c153", "open-science-source-05/c41", "open-science-source-05/c46", "open-science-source-06/c51", "open-science-source-12/c12", "open-science-source-20/c9", "open-science-source-22/c11", "open-science-source-24-c1/c11", "open-science-source-24-c1/c73", "open-science-source-26/c73", "open-science-source-30/c172", "open-science-source-31/c54", "open-science-source-36/c175", "open-science-source-37-c1/c106", "open-science-source-37-c2/c109", "open-science-source-50/c29", "open-science-source-54-c3/c11", "osft-doc-0050/c29", "osft-doc-0050/c5", "osft-doc-0050/c6", "osft-doc-0084/c4", "osft-doc-0114/c11", "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/c23", "osft-doc-0441/c24", "osft-doc-0441/c28", "osft-doc-0441/c290", "osft-doc-0441/c33", "osft-doc-0441/c331", "osft-doc-0441/c334", "osft-doc-0504/c24", "osft-doc-0504/c5", "osft-doc-0504/c8", "osft-doc-0730/c22", "osft-doc-0730/c25", "osft-doc-0730/c50", "osft-doc-0825/c17", "osft-doc-0825/c18", "osft-doc-0825/c19", "osft-doc-0825/c20", "osft-doc-0825/c23", "osft-doc-0825/c31", "osft-doc-0825/c64", "osft-doc-0860/c18", "osft-doc-0900/c10", "osft-doc-0975/c29", "osft-doc-1031/c22", "osft-doc-1171/c12", "osft-doc-1193/c76", "osft-doc-1373/c14", "osft-doc-1373/c353", "osft-doc-1373/c636", "osft-doc-1459/c363", "osft-doc-1459/c368", "osft-doc-1459/c669", "osft-doc-1507/c143", "osft-doc-1646/c1", "osft-doc-1878/c35", "open-science-source-21/c9", "osft-doc-0633/c37", "osft-doc-1869/c236" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 209, "claims": 623, "documents": 90 } }, { "id": "T2-linked-machine-actionable-record", "kind": "convergence", "name": "The scientific record should become linked and machine-actionable", "definition": "Data, software, workflows, protocols, and claims should be citable, machine-actionable objects, connected to each other and to the people, grants, and institutions behind them. Includes FAIR applied beyond data, research objects beyond the article, and open research information about who did what.", "route": "predefined-primary", "judgedName": "The scientific record should become linked and machine-actionable", "judgedDefinition": "The record of science should be a web-native, linked, machine-actionable set of objects: claims, data, software, workflows, protocols treated as citable, machine-readable, connected research objects (FORCE11), plus the research-information layer around them (actors, affiliations, grants, outputs and their relations — Barcelona). Positions about research objects beyond the paper, machine-actionability, linking, FAIR applied to all outputs, interoperability of the record.", "judgedDefinitionVersion": "topdown-v1", "starIds": [ "open-science-source-21/c35", "open-science-source-12/c32", "open-science-source-12/c31", "open-science-source-25/c28", "open-science-source-29/c12", "osft-doc-1869/c246", "osft-doc-0645/c121", "osft-doc-1459/c354", "osft-doc-1869/c249", "open-science-source-03/c97", "osft-doc-0825/c30", "osft-doc-0951/c22", "osft-doc-0951/c24", "osft-doc-0963/c11", "open-science-source-04/c135", "osft-doc-1373/c398", "osft-doc-1869/c248", "osft-doc-0645/c45", "open-science-source-05/c81", "open-science-source-06/c172", "open-science-source-06/c173", "open-science-source-24-c2/c55", "open-science-source-50/c31", "osft-doc-0645/c47", "osft-doc-0951/c25", "osft-doc-1283/c136", "osft-doc-1459/c353", "osft-doc-1646/c37", "osft-doc-1507/c158", "osft-doc-1507/c151", "osft-doc-0050/c119", "osft-doc-0730/c60", "osft-doc-0963/c24", "osft-doc-1027/c111", "osft-doc-1507/c147", "osft-doc-1507/c162", "osft-doc-1940/c1", "osft-doc-1373/c163", "osft-doc-1449/c379", "osft-doc-1150/c20", "osft-doc-0645/c125", "osft-doc-0645/c76", "open-science-source-24-c1/c56", "osft-doc-0730/c70", "osft-doc-1373/c239", "osft-doc-1702/c91", "osft-doc-0846/c37", "open-science-source-05/c43", "open-science-source-05/c60", "open-science-source-05/c61", "open-science-source-05/c62", "open-science-source-06/c175", "open-science-source-06/c208", "open-science-source-06/c94", "open-science-source-16-c1/c10", "open-science-source-16-c1/c165", "open-science-source-16-c1/c54", "open-science-source-26/c3", "open-science-source-30/c137", "open-science-source-30/c140", "open-science-source-37-c1/c48", "open-science-source-42/c638", "open-science-source-50/c50", "osft-doc-0050/c182", "osft-doc-0050/c185", "osft-doc-0645/c22", "osft-doc-0645/c3", "osft-doc-0645/c94", "osft-doc-0836/c2", "osft-doc-1373/c240", "osft-doc-1373/c492", "osft-doc-1449/c230", "osft-doc-1507/c107", "osft-doc-1507/c11", "osft-doc-1507/c113", "osft-doc-1507/c47", "osft-doc-1507/c48", "osft-doc-1507/c49" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 78, "claims": 225, "documents": 60 } }, { "id": "T3-immediate-access", "kind": "convergence", "name": "Research should be available without delay", "definition": "Outputs of public funding should be publicly accessible immediately on publication or acceptance — or, in the softer form, as soon as possible — with no delay period.", "route": "predefined-primary", "judgedName": "Immediate access without an embargo", "judgedDefinition": "Research outputs — especially publicly funded ones — should be publicly accessible immediately (upon publication or acceptance), with no embargo. Includes the softer 'as soon as possible' form. Positions about public/open access to funded research and its timing.", "judgedDefinitionVersion": "topdown-v1", "starIds": [ "open-science-source-24-c2/c2", "osft-doc-1459/c347", "open-science-source-29/c1", "open-science-source-24-c1/c45", "osft-doc-1124/c24", "open-science-source-11/c3", "open-science-source-20/c11", "open-science-source-34/c30", "osft-doc-1253/c14", "osft-doc-1327/c128", "osft-doc-0114/c13", "open-science-source-34/c10", "osft-doc-0298/c18", "osft-doc-1646/c31", "osft-doc-1283/c69", "osft-doc-1737/c30", "osft-doc-0971/c54", "open-science-source-23/c35", "osft-doc-1373/c144", "osft-doc-1373/c242", "osft-doc-0534/c28", "open-science-source-03/c74", "osft-doc-0504/c33", "open-science-source-20/c14", "osft-doc-0900/c25", "open-science-source-34/c1", "open-science-source-19/c56", "osft-doc-1459/c667", "open-science-source-34/c2", "osft-doc-1373/c298", "open-science-source-23/c59", "open-science-source-28/c9", "open-science-source-02/c23", "open-science-source-14-c2/c4", "open-science-source-19/c47", "open-science-source-24-c2/c31", "open-science-source-34/c7", "open-science-source-36/c114", "osft-doc-0114/c20", "osft-doc-0298/c13", "osft-doc-0504/c16", "osft-doc-0504/c17", "osft-doc-0825/c15", "osft-doc-1373/c140", "osft-doc-1373/c89" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 45, "claims": 162, "documents": 56 } }, { "id": "T4-open-licensing-reuse", "kind": "convergence", "name": "Research should be open to reuse", "definition": "Outputs should carry open licences (CC BY for articles, CC0 for data, open-source licences for code) in formats that allow text and data mining, machine learning, and computation. Free to read is not enough; lawful machine reuse is the test.", "route": "predefined-primary", "judgedName": "Licensing and machine-readable reuse", "judgedDefinition": "Outputs should carry open licenses (CC BY for articles, CC0 for data, OSI licenses for code) and open, machine-readable formats that permit text and data mining, machine learning, and computational reuse — free to read is not enough; lawful computation is the test.", "judgedDefinitionVersion": "topdown-v1", "starIds": [ "open-science-source-24-c7/c8", "osft-doc-0020/c75", "open-science-source-09/c63", "open-science-source-20/c12", "osft-doc-1213/c4", "open-science-source-15-c1/c76", "osft-doc-1459/c34", "open-science-source-24-c8/c48", "osft-doc-1213/c5", "open-science-source-24-c2/c56", "open-science-source-24-c3/c22", "osft-doc-1213/c50", "osft-doc-1301/c16", "osft-doc-1459/c355", "osft-doc-0411/c51", "osft-doc-1373/c172", "osft-doc-1373/c315", "osft-doc-1373/c616", "osft-doc-1459/c196", "open-science-source-16-c1/c8", "open-science-source-24-c4/c27", "open-science-source-24-c3/c20", "osft-doc-1213/c24", "open-science-source-24-c8/c6", "osft-doc-1213/c49", "osft-doc-1673/c10", "open-science-source-24-c3/c64", "open-science-source-29/c11", "osft-doc-1373/c117", "osft-doc-1373/c334", "osft-doc-1373/c43", "osft-doc-1373/c160", "open-science-source-04/c152", "open-science-source-03/c25", "open-science-source-03/c29", "open-science-source-03/c83", "open-science-source-05/c72", "open-science-source-15-c2/c145", "open-science-source-16-c1/c106", "open-science-source-19/c31", "open-science-source-24-c1/c21", "open-science-source-24-c2/c57", "open-science-source-24-c6/c16", "open-science-source-24-c8/c51", "open-science-source-24-c8/c52", "open-science-source-24-c9/c25", "open-science-source-43/c44", "osft-doc-0108/c39", "osft-doc-0108/c40", "osft-doc-0108/c45", "osft-doc-0411/c15", "osft-doc-0504/c19", "osft-doc-1197/c19", "osft-doc-1373/c243", "osft-doc-1373/c320", "osft-doc-1373/c321", "osft-doc-1373/c322", "osft-doc-1373/c533", "osft-doc-1373/c534", "osft-doc-1373/c88", "osft-doc-1459/c70", "osft-doc-1673/c359" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 62, "claims": 176, "documents": 55 } }, { "id": "T5-free-compliance-route", "kind": "convergence", "name": "Sharing research should not depend on the author’s ability to pay", "definition": "Every author needs a fee-free route to compliance: repository deposit, preprints, accepted manuscripts. Article processing charges must not be the only way in, and compliance costs should not fall on authors or their institutions.", "route": "predefined-primary", "judgedName": "A free route to compliance", "judgedDefinition": "Authors must have a route to open-access compliance that requires no publication fee: repository deposit (green route), preprints, accepted manuscripts. Positions that a fee-free route should exist, that APCs must not be the only path, that costs of compliance should not fall on authors.", "judgedDefinitionVersion": "topdown-v1", "starIds": [ "open-science-source-24-c5/c17", "open-science-source-24-c3/c9", "open-science-source-15-c2/c40", "osft-doc-0211/c26", "open-science-source-24-c3/c12", "open-science-source-24-c2/c6", "open-science-source-24-c2/c7", "open-science-source-28/c30", "open-science-source-24-c9/c81", "osft-doc-0211/c25", "open-science-source-24-c8/c16", "osft-doc-1327/c777", "osft-doc-1373/c127", "osft-doc-1373/c132", "osft-doc-1373/c96", "osft-doc-1459/c39", "open-science-source-24-c3/c61", "osft-doc-0504/c42", "open-science-source-24-c6/c59", "open-science-source-15-c1/c65", "open-science-source-15-c2/c50", "open-science-source-15-c2/c56", "open-science-source-19/c33", "open-science-source-19/c62", "open-science-source-22/c17", "open-science-source-23/c37", "osft-doc-0504/c27", "osft-doc-0504/c43", "osft-doc-1373/c131", "osft-doc-1373/c174", "osft-doc-1373/c44", "osft-doc-1673/c45" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 32, "claims": 100, "documents": 31 } }, { "id": "T6-identifiers-open-metadata", "kind": "convergence", "name": "Research should remain identifiable and connected across systems", "definition": "DOIs, ORCIDs, RORs and other persistent identifiers, with open, detailed metadata and open interfaces, should connect research outputs to the people, organisations, and funding behind them; research information should be open and interoperable.", "route": "predefined-primary", "judgedName": "Persistent identifiers and open metadata", "judgedDefinition": "Persistent identifiers (DOI, ORCID, ROR), open and detailed metadata, and open interfaces should connect outputs, people, organizations, and grants; research information should be open and interoperable.", "judgedDefinitionVersion": "topdown-v1", "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0645/c98", "osft-doc-0730/c76", "open-science-source-05/c39", "open-science-source-24-c9/c68", "open-science-source-21/c38", "open-science-source-24-c6/c18", "open-science-source-34/c61", "osft-doc-1373/c99", "open-science-source-15-c1/c71", "open-science-source-24-c6/c19", "open-science-source-24-c7/c9", "osft-doc-0645/c84", "osft-doc-1197/c20", "osft-doc-0050/c52", "osft-doc-0050/c8", "osft-doc-0731/c2", "open-science-source-03/c197", "open-science-source-12/c150", "osft-doc-0298/c21", "osft-doc-0730/c72", "osft-doc-0645/c87", "open-science-source-15-c1/c73", "open-science-source-24-c1/c82", "osft-doc-0963/c27", "osft-doc-1459/c124", "open-science-source-24-c7/c10", "osft-doc-0050/c51", "open-science-source-03/c209", "open-science-source-05/c37", "open-science-source-05/c38", "open-science-source-05/c49", "open-science-source-05/c56", "open-science-source-05/c64", "open-science-source-16-c1/c159", "open-science-source-21/c110", "open-science-source-24-c1/c83", "open-science-source-24-c1/c86", "open-science-source-24-c2/c59", "open-science-source-24-c4/c45", "open-science-source-38/c191", "open-science-source-54-c2/c147", "osft-doc-0050/c23", "osft-doc-0050/c53", "osft-doc-0050/c54", "osft-doc-0050/c55", "osft-doc-0050/c56", "osft-doc-0050/c9", "osft-doc-0142/c151", "osft-doc-0298/c108", "osft-doc-0645/c88", "osft-doc-0645/c89", "osft-doc-0645/c91", "osft-doc-0731/c1", "osft-doc-0731/c5", "osft-doc-0731/c6", "osft-doc-0731/c8", "osft-doc-1412/c160", "osft-doc-1507/c109", "osft-doc-1507/c111", "osft-doc-1507/c133", "osft-doc-1507/c134", "osft-doc-1507/c136", "osft-doc-1507/c157" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 63, "claims": 156, "documents": 45 } }, { "id": "T7-assessment-reform", "kind": "convergence", "name": "Research assessment should recognize the full contribution to science", "definition": "Hiring, promotion, tenure, funding, and recognition decide whether open practices count as real professional work. Assessment should move beyond journal brands, impact factors, and citation counts to value diverse outputs and open practices; incentives and reward systems must change. Includes claims that the current reward system blocks openness.", "route": "predefined-primary", "judgedName": "Assessment determines whether researchers can comply", "judgedDefinition": "Research assessment — hiring, promotion, tenure, funding, recognition — decides whether open practices count as professional work. Assessment should move beyond journal brands, impact factors and citation counts to value diverse outputs and open practices; incentives and reward systems must change. Includes claims that the current reward system blocks openness.", "judgedDefinitionVersion": "topdown-v1", "starIds": [ "open-science-source-12/c194", "osft-doc-1283/c56", "open-science-source-10/c90", "osft-doc-1459/c589", "osft-doc-1283/c60", "osft-doc-0296/c1", "osft-doc-1869/c231", "osft-doc-1673/c270", "osft-doc-0142/c648", "open-science-source-21/c98", "osft-doc-0441/c168", "osft-doc-0142/c649", "open-science-source-02/c122", "osft-doc-1673/c66", "osft-doc-1449/c333", "osft-doc-1449/c329", "osft-doc-1373/c72", "osft-doc-1459/c431", "open-science-source-54-c2/c90", "osft-doc-0108/c31", "osft-doc-1459/c119", "osft-doc-1449/c58", "osft-doc-0108/c49", "osft-doc-1449/c355", "osft-doc-1869/c52", "open-science-source-03/c255", "open-science-source-03/c258", "osft-doc-0002/c36", "osft-doc-1449/c364", "open-science-source-43/c25", "open-science-source-06/c66", "osft-doc-1373/c119", "osft-doc-1373/c407", "osft-doc-1373/c412", "osft-doc-1373/c583", "osft-doc-1673/c352", "osft-doc-0298/c132", "osft-doc-1283/c93", "osft-doc-0108/c20", "open-science-source-04/c111", "osft-doc-0108/c36", "osft-doc-1449/c331", "osft-doc-0138/c9", "osft-doc-1869/c51", "open-science-source-03/c262", "open-science-source-45/c52", "osft-doc-1459/c643", "osft-doc-0050/c64", "osft-doc-0108/c12", "osft-doc-1373/c293", "osft-doc-1373/c566", "open-science-source-06/c267", "open-science-source-37-c1/c127", "osft-doc-0108/c15", "osft-doc-0108/c23", "osft-doc-0108/c35", "osft-doc-0142/c1083", "osft-doc-0142/c28", "osft-doc-0142/c89", "osft-doc-0211/c28", "osft-doc-1327/c976", "osft-doc-1373/c110", "osft-doc-1373/c113", "osft-doc-1373/c257", "osft-doc-1373/c299", "osft-doc-1373/c404", "osft-doc-1373/c434", "osft-doc-1373/c584", "osft-doc-1373/c617", "osft-doc-1449/c335", "osft-doc-1047/c23", "osft-doc-1459/c664", "osft-doc-0441/c169", "osft-doc-0441/c282", "open-science-source-23/c61", "osft-doc-1449/c339", "osft-doc-1449/c502", "osft-doc-0296/c29", "osft-doc-1353/c135", "osft-doc-1327/c146", "osft-doc-1373/c198", "osft-doc-1673/c351", "osft-doc-0138/c1", "osft-doc-0441/c159", "osft-doc-1047/c37", "osft-doc-1459/c115", "open-science-source-03/c248", "osft-doc-1047/c24", "osft-doc-1283/c54", "osft-doc-1327/c780", "osft-doc-1459/c120", "open-science-source-06/c67", "open-science-source-55/c39", "osft-doc-0108/c27", "osft-doc-1373/c405", "osft-doc-1373/c424", "osft-doc-1449/c361", "osft-doc-1459/c392", "osft-doc-1459/c436", "osft-doc-1459/c457", "osft-doc-1869/c169", "osft-doc-1878/c147", "osft-doc-0441/c160", "open-science-source-03/c260", "open-science-source-04/c125", "open-science-source-05/c25", "open-science-source-05/c35", "open-science-source-05/c9", "open-science-source-06/c156", "open-science-source-10/c103", "open-science-source-10/c167", "open-science-source-10/c168", "open-science-source-12/c99", "open-science-source-33/c18", "open-science-source-38/c80", "open-science-source-43/c90", "open-science-source-45/c50", "open-science-source-55/c16", "open-science-source-55/c35", "open-science-source-55/c36", "osft-doc-0050/c183", "osft-doc-0050/c80", "osft-doc-0108/c17", "osft-doc-0108/c22", "osft-doc-0108/c24", "osft-doc-0108/c25", "osft-doc-0108/c28", "osft-doc-0108/c32", "osft-doc-0108/c51", "osft-doc-0108/c52", "osft-doc-0108/c53", "osft-doc-0142/c1021", "osft-doc-0142/c1052", "osft-doc-0142/c1293", "osft-doc-0142/c650", "osft-doc-0142/c912", "osft-doc-0441/c315", "osft-doc-0441/c35", "osft-doc-1047/c4", "osft-doc-1327/c683", "osft-doc-1327/c687", "osft-doc-1373/c181", "osft-doc-1373/c197", "osft-doc-1373/c212", "osft-doc-1373/c410", "osft-doc-1373/c428", "osft-doc-1373/c435", "osft-doc-1373/c530", "osft-doc-1373/c76", "osft-doc-1869/c53" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 150, "claims": 496, "documents": 54 } }, { "id": "T8-infrastructure-public-obligations", "kind": "convergence", "name": "Shared infrastructure should remain accountable to the research community", "definition": "The shared services science runs on should be community-controlled or not-for-profit, transparently governed, sustainably financed, and protected against organisational failure or acquisition (the POSI principles: governance, sustainability, insurance). Claims about funding, governing, and sustaining open infrastructure.", "route": "predefined-primary", "judgedName": "Shared infrastructure requires public obligations", "judgedDefinition": "Shared scholarly infrastructure should be not-for-profit or community-controlled, sustainably funded, transparently governed, and protected against organizational failure or acquisition (the POSI principles: governance, sustainability, insurance). Positions about funding, governing, and sustaining open infrastructure.", "judgedDefinitionVersion": "topdown-v1", "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1287/c47", "osft-doc-0846/c87", "open-science-source-09/c30", "open-science-source-09/c32", "open-science-source-09/c33", "open-science-source-09/c34", "osft-doc-0151/c73", "osft-doc-0756/c8", "osft-doc-0836/c60", "open-science-source-09/c3", "open-science-source-09/c61", "open-science-source-37-c1/c109", "osft-doc-1287/c30", "osft-doc-0020/c56", "open-science-source-09/c56", "osft-doc-0020/c39", "osft-doc-0020/c40", "osft-doc-0151/c46", "osft-doc-0836/c53", "open-science-source-09/c24", "osft-doc-0151/c44", "open-science-source-53/c20", "osft-doc-1287/c36", "open-science-source-37-c2/c53", "osft-doc-0151/c74", "open-science-source-09/c8", "open-science-source-51/c2", "osft-doc-1459/c405", "osft-doc-0151/c119", "osft-doc-0020/c12", "osft-doc-0150/c36", "open-science-source-09/c59", "osft-doc-1287/c5", "osft-doc-1459/c187", "osft-doc-1781/c100", "open-science-source-10/c162", "osft-doc-0836/c35", "open-science-source-09/c40", "osft-doc-0002/c29", "open-science-source-21/c77", "osft-doc-0730/c94", "osft-doc-1373/c120", "osft-doc-1869/c68", "osft-doc-0836/c51", "open-science-source-09/c25", "open-science-source-09/c36", "open-science-source-09/c37", "open-science-source-09/c38", "open-science-source-10/c78", "open-science-source-24-c1/c55", "open-science-source-37-c1/c130", "open-science-source-38/c70", "open-science-source-53/c14", "osft-doc-0020/c21", "osft-doc-0020/c29", "osft-doc-0836/c41", "osft-doc-0836/c45", "osft-doc-0836/c61", "osft-doc-0836/c64", "osft-doc-0836/c65", "osft-doc-0836/c66", "osft-doc-0836/c68", "osft-doc-0836/c69", "osft-doc-1373/c154", "osft-doc-1373/c210", "osft-doc-1373/c369", "open-science-source-38/c107", "osft-doc-0836/c101", "osft-doc-1507/c88", "osft-doc-0756/c4", "osft-doc-0151/c67", "osft-doc-1287/c48", "osft-doc-0020/c44", "open-science-source-09/c13", "open-science-source-38/c124", "osft-doc-0836/c19", "osft-doc-0846/c53", "osft-doc-0151/c66", "osft-doc-1283/c26", "osft-doc-1869/c15", "open-science-source-09/c17", "open-science-source-09/c22", "open-science-source-10/c189", "osft-doc-1373/c559", "open-science-source-03/c100", "open-science-source-03/c314", "open-science-source-05/c100", "open-science-source-05/c40", "open-science-source-05/c50", "open-science-source-05/c96", "open-science-source-05/c97", "open-science-source-05/c98", "open-science-source-06/c254", "open-science-source-09/c14", "open-science-source-09/c15", "open-science-source-09/c16", "open-science-source-09/c26", "open-science-source-09/c27", "open-science-source-09/c28", "open-science-source-09/c29", "open-science-source-09/c31", "open-science-source-09/c42", "open-science-source-09/c46", "open-science-source-09/c9", "open-science-source-10/c59", "open-science-source-10/c61", "open-science-source-15-c2/c16", "open-science-source-25/c43", "open-science-source-37-c1/c135", "open-science-source-38/c22", "open-science-source-38/c434", "open-science-source-38/c5", "open-science-source-53/c21", "osft-doc-0050/c186", "osft-doc-0050/c21", "osft-doc-0050/c32", "osft-doc-0836/c102", "osft-doc-0836/c103", "osft-doc-0836/c11", "osft-doc-0836/c22", "osft-doc-0836/c3", "osft-doc-0836/c40", "osft-doc-0836/c44", "osft-doc-0836/c46", "osft-doc-0836/c80", "osft-doc-0836/c82", "osft-doc-0836/c96", "osft-doc-0836/c97", "osft-doc-0836/c99", "osft-doc-1287/c16", "osft-doc-1287/c63", "osft-doc-1373/c136", "osft-doc-1373/c177", "osft-doc-1373/c364", "osft-doc-1373/c560" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 135, "claims": 482, "documents": 46 } }, { "id": "D1-infrastructure-monopoly-vs-fragmentation", "kind": "divergence-axis", "name": "Shared infrastructure and distributed control", "definition": "One side favours distributed, independent, interoperable modules to avoid lock-in and single points of control; the other favours federating or consolidating services to avoid fragmentation and under-resourced duplicates. Either side counts.", "route": "predefined-primary", "judgedName": "Shared infrastructure without monopoly", "judgedDefinition": "The axis between distributed, independent, interoperable modules (against centralization and lock-in) and federating or consolidating services (against fragmentation). Either side counts: positions favoring decentralization/modularity, or favoring consolidation/federation of infrastructure.", "judgedDefinitionVersion": "topdown-v1", "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0756/c36", "osft-doc-0951/c19", "open-science-source-37-c1/c115", "osft-doc-1373/c622", "osft-doc-1459/c141", "osft-doc-1373/c292", "osft-doc-1373/c311", "open-science-source-06/c149", "open-science-source-06/c184", "open-science-source-10/c185", "open-science-source-10/c187", "open-science-source-24-c5/c37", "open-science-source-38/c249", "osft-doc-0151/c45", "osft-doc-0645/c34", "osft-doc-0836/c84", "osft-doc-0836/c86", "osft-doc-0836/c93", "osft-doc-0836/c95", "osft-doc-0836/c98", "osft-doc-1373/c339" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 21, "claims": 56, "documents": 25 } }, { "id": "D2-publishing-money", "kind": "divergence-axis", "name": "Which publishing costs institutions should pay", "definition": "How publication should be financed: article processing charges and their inequities, price caps or regulation, repository deposit that separates payment from access, refusing to pay APCs, Diamond models. Claims that take a side on paying for publication.", "route": "predefined-primary", "judgedName": "Publishing money", "judgedDefinition": "How open access should be paid for: the APC economy and its inequities; price caps or regulation; repository deposit that separates payment from access; refusing to pay APCs; Diamond models. Positions that take a side on financing publication.", "judgedDefinitionVersion": "topdown-v1", "starIds": [ "open-science-source-24-c2/c10", "open-science-source-02/c174", "osft-doc-1673/c309", "open-science-source-24-c1/c34", "open-science-source-24-c3/c40", "open-science-source-24-c1/c36", "open-science-source-02/c198", "open-science-source-10/c14", "open-science-source-10/c159", "open-science-source-24-c4/c39", "osft-doc-0504/c22", "osft-doc-0825/c56", "open-science-source-24-c4/c33", "osft-doc-1673/c189", "osft-doc-0504/c13", "open-science-source-15-c1/c51", "open-science-source-23/c5", "open-science-source-24-c4/c38", "open-science-source-37-c1/c82", "open-science-source-38/c156", "osft-doc-0504/c23", "osft-doc-1124/c28", "osft-doc-1373/c102", "osft-doc-1373/c103", "osft-doc-1373/c104", "osft-doc-1373/c122", "osft-doc-1373/c125", "osft-doc-1373/c126", "osft-doc-1373/c184", "osft-doc-1373/c185", "osft-doc-1373/c93", "open-science-source-24-c1/c35", "osft-doc-1373/c500", "open-science-source-15-c1/c7", "open-science-source-36/c26", "osft-doc-0900/c24", "osft-doc-1373/c625", "osft-doc-0900/c23", "open-science-source-02/c149", "open-science-source-02/c160", "open-science-source-02/c195", "open-science-source-02/c306", "open-science-source-02/c308", "open-science-source-02/c321", "open-science-source-02/c323", "open-science-source-02/c325", "open-science-source-02/c344", "open-science-source-06/c69", "open-science-source-15-c1/c50", "open-science-source-17/c102", "open-science-source-25/c39", "open-science-source-28/c25", "open-science-source-34/c48", "open-science-source-36/c123", "open-science-source-36/c164", "osft-doc-0504/c36", "osft-doc-0825/c48", "osft-doc-0825/c57", "osft-doc-0825/c60", "osft-doc-0825/c61", "osft-doc-1373/c186", "osft-doc-1373/c561", "osft-doc-1373/c562", "osft-doc-1373/c600", "osft-doc-1373/c601", "osft-doc-1373/c607", "osft-doc-1373/c79", "osft-doc-1373/c87", "osft-doc-1373/c90", "osft-doc-1373/c91", "osft-doc-1373/c92", "osft-doc-1398/c46", "open-science-source-43/c70" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 73, "claims": 206, "documents": 43 } }, { "id": "D3-consent-and-access", "kind": "divergence-axis", "name": "Who may authorize access and reuse", "definition": "'As open as possible, as closed as necessary' versus community-determined openness (CARE, Indigenous data sovereignty, Traditional Knowledge Labels); privacy and other lawful grounds for restricting data; machine-readable conditions on access and reuse.", "route": "predefined-primary", "judgedName": "Consent and access", "judgedDefinition": "Who authorizes reuse and how open data should be: 'as open as possible, as closed as necessary' versus community-determined openness (CARE, Indigenous data sovereignty, Traditional Knowledge Labels), privacy and other lawful grounds for restriction, machine-readable access conditions.", "judgedDefinitionVersion": "topdown-v1", "starIds": [ "open-science-source-24-c10/c9", "open-science-source-09/c64", "osft-doc-1459/c598", "osft-doc-1027/c28", "open-science-source-42/c147", "open-science-source-24-c6/c14", "open-science-source-26/c123", "osft-doc-1027/c63", "open-science-source-26/c50", "open-science-source-30/c3", "open-science-source-26/c27", "open-science-source-26/c4", "osft-doc-1027/c121", "open-science-source-26/c16", "open-science-source-26/c18", "open-science-source-24-c1/c68", "open-science-source-26/c19", "open-science-source-26/c17", "osft-doc-0971/c26", "open-science-source-26/c14", "open-science-source-26/c21", "open-science-source-26/c52", "open-science-source-26/c58", "osft-doc-0645/c90", "osft-doc-1646/c21", "open-science-source-26/c13", "open-science-source-30/c169", "open-science-source-26/c41", "open-science-source-26/c61", "open-science-source-26/c90", "open-science-source-26/c96", "osft-doc-1027/c116", "osft-doc-1027/c44", "osft-doc-1027/c74", "open-science-source-26/c124", "open-science-source-26/c102", "open-science-source-26/c134", "open-science-source-26/c22", "osft-doc-1027/c138", "open-science-source-30/c181", "open-science-source-30/c194", "open-science-source-30/c78", "osft-doc-1612/c77", "open-science-source-30/c179", "open-science-source-05/c15", "open-science-source-05/c75", "open-science-source-05/c76", "open-science-source-05/c77", "open-science-source-15-c1/c15", "open-science-source-21/c47", "open-science-source-21/c48", "open-science-source-26/c10", "open-science-source-26/c100", "open-science-source-26/c105", "open-science-source-26/c106", "open-science-source-26/c107", "open-science-source-26/c108", "open-science-source-26/c11", "open-science-source-26/c112", "open-science-source-26/c113", "open-science-source-26/c128", "open-science-source-26/c129", "open-science-source-26/c131", "open-science-source-26/c133", "open-science-source-26/c137", "open-science-source-26/c138", "open-science-source-26/c141", "open-science-source-26/c24", "open-science-source-26/c29", "open-science-source-26/c45", "open-science-source-26/c46", "open-science-source-26/c55", "open-science-source-26/c56", "open-science-source-26/c60", "open-science-source-26/c62", "open-science-source-26/c63", "open-science-source-26/c64", "open-science-source-26/c69", "open-science-source-26/c76", "open-science-source-26/c77", "open-science-source-26/c8", "open-science-source-26/c82", "open-science-source-26/c83", "open-science-source-26/c87", "open-science-source-26/c88", "open-science-source-26/c89", "open-science-source-26/c9", "open-science-source-26/c92", "open-science-source-26/c97", "open-science-source-26/c99", "open-science-source-30/c107", "osft-doc-0951/c26", "osft-doc-1373/c344", "osft-doc-1373/c574", "osft-doc-1507/c144", "osft-doc-1702/c8", "open-science-source-42/c50" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 97, "claims": 259, "documents": 43 } }, { "id": "D4-universal-vs-situated", "kind": "divergence-axis", "name": "Common standards and different research contexts", "definition": "Universal standards and interoperability versus plural, context-specific ways of doing open science; the risk that standards exclude under-resourced participants; non-exclusion tests; 'there is no one right way to do open science'.", "route": "predefined-primary", "judgedName": "Universal standards and situated openness", "judgedDefinition": "Whether open science has one correct implementation and one set of standards, or plural, context-dependent forms; the risk that standards exclude under-resourced participants; non-exclusion tests; 'no one right way to do open science'.", "judgedDefinitionVersion": "topdown-v1", "starIds": [ "open-science-source-03/c190", "osft-doc-0002/c27", "open-science-source-03/c142", "osft-doc-1673/c324", "osft-doc-1673/c122", "open-science-source-03/c259", "osft-doc-0860/c4", "osft-doc-1373/c229", "osft-doc-0785/c1", "osft-doc-1283/c49", "osft-doc-1373/c246", "osft-doc-0777/c11", "open-science-source-45/c41", "osft-doc-1373/c259", "osft-doc-1327/c618", "osft-doc-1449/c234", "open-science-source-38/c290", "osft-doc-0860/c2", "osft-doc-1327/c439", "osft-doc-1327/c818", "osft-doc-1327/c397", "osft-doc-1449/c16", "osft-doc-1327/c731", "osft-doc-1449/c100", "osft-doc-1327/c335", "open-science-source-27/c13", "osft-doc-0142/c29", "osft-doc-1327/c794", "osft-doc-1373/c258", "osft-doc-1373/c635", "open-science-source-06/c250", "open-science-source-10/c196", "open-science-source-12/c72", "open-science-source-26/c31", "open-science-source-26/c32", "osft-doc-0050/c165", "osft-doc-0050/c181", "osft-doc-0050/c193", "osft-doc-0050/c26", "osft-doc-0150/c3", "osft-doc-0504/c45", "osft-doc-1124/c20", "osft-doc-1283/c74", "osft-doc-1373/c17", "osft-doc-1373/c224", "osft-doc-1373/c265", "osft-doc-1373/c266", "osft-doc-1373/c267", "osft-doc-1373/c577", "osft-doc-1612/c22", "osft-doc-0150/c77" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 51, "claims": 151, "documents": 44 } }, { "id": "D5-commercial-participation", "kind": "divergence-axis", "name": "Commercial participation and community ownership", "definition": "Non-commercial, community-owned models (Diamond, Toluca–Cape Town) versus regulated public-private partnerships or freemium arrangements; protections against enclosure, acquisition, exclusive licensing, and business-model change.", "route": "predefined-primary", "judgedName": "Commercial participation", "judgedDefinition": "Whether commercial actors may participate in publicly financed scholarly infrastructure and publishing: non-commercial community ownership (Diamond, Toluca–Cape Town) versus regulated public-private partnerships or freemium models; protections against enclosure, acquisition, exclusive licensing.", "judgedDefinitionVersion": "topdown-v1", "starIds": [ "open-science-source-02/c277", "osft-doc-1373/c142", "osft-doc-1373/c621", "osft-doc-1373/c626", "osft-doc-1373/c627", "open-science-source-02/c59", "open-science-source-03/c151", "open-science-source-03/c167", "open-science-source-10/c3", "open-science-source-11/c5", "open-science-source-42/c696", "osft-doc-0068/c50", "osft-doc-0836/c4", "osft-doc-0836/c6", "osft-doc-0836/c9", "osft-doc-1373/c495", "osft-doc-1373/c496", "osft-doc-1373/c498", "osft-doc-1373/c499", "osft-doc-1373/c536", "osft-doc-1459/c127" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 21, "claims": 47, "documents": 13 } }, { "id": "G1-endorsed-but-not-routine", "kind": "convergence", "name": "Open practice is widely endorsed but has not become routine", "definition": "Decades of declarations and high stated support for open access and open data have not made open practices the norm: uptake remains partial or uneven across disciplines, institutions, and countries, the record is still mostly documents, and endorsement was never bound to the funding, publication, and evaluation decisions that would make practice follow. Claims that open practices are not yet routine, that adoption lags endorsement, or that a described vision has gone unimplemented for years. NOT membership: claims that assessment or reward systems block openness (assessment theme), that declarations bind no one (declarations theme), or that the field is merely changing or evolving.", "route": "predefined-secondary", "judgedName": "Open practice is widely endorsed but has not become routine", "judgedDefinition": "Decades of declarations and high stated support for open access and open data have not made open practices the norm: uptake remains partial or uneven across disciplines, institutions, and countries, the record is still mostly documents, and endorsement was never bound to the funding, publication, and evaluation decisions that would make practice follow. Claims that open practices are not yet routine, that adoption lags endorsement, or that a described vision has gone unimplemented for years. NOT membership: claims that assessment or reward systems block openness (assessment theme), that declarations bind no one (declarations theme), or that the field is merely changing or evolving.", "judgedDefinitionVersion": "predefined-secondary-v1", "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1327/c632", "osft-doc-1869/c230", "osft-doc-0411/c31", "osft-doc-1373/c237", "osft-doc-1373/c274", "osft-doc-1507/c142", "osft-doc-1373/c553", "osft-doc-1459/c549", "osft-doc-1373/c238", "osft-doc-1878/c75", "osft-doc-1327/c374", "osft-doc-1327/c415", "open-science-source-12/c76", "osft-doc-1373/c250", "osft-doc-1869/c228", "open-science-source-19/c17", "open-science-source-26/c111", "open-science-source-26/c115", "open-science-source-26/c130", "open-science-source-26/c140", "open-science-source-26/c40", "open-science-source-38/c72", "osft-doc-0441/c76", "osft-doc-0504/c9", "osft-doc-1327/c1155", "osft-doc-1373/c508", "osft-doc-1507/c145", "osft-doc-1507/c146", "osft-doc-1507/c35" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 29, "claims": 78, "documents": 21 } }, { "id": "M1-declarations-do-not-bind", "kind": "convergence", "name": "Declarations and recommendations bind no one; prestige and enforceability run in opposite directions", "definition": "The field's declarations, principles, and recommendations recommend action to third parties and bind none of their authors: they establish vocabulary, legitimacy, and direction, not enforcement. A recommendation, however many states or organisations endorse it, cannot replace a grant condition, an eligibility rule, or an audited agreement; a commitment becomes an instrument only when its signatories can miss a deadline, fail an audit, or lose a resource. Claims that voluntary commitments, soft-law instruments, or 'encourages' language do not produce compliance, or that a document commits (or fails to commit) its own authors. NOT membership: claims that a specific party should require or condition something (conditioned-resources theme).", "route": "predefined-secondary", "judgedName": "Declarations and recommendations bind no one; prestige and enforceability run in opposite directions", "judgedDefinition": "The field's declarations, principles, and recommendations recommend action to third parties and bind none of their authors: they establish vocabulary, legitimacy, and direction, not enforcement. A recommendation, however many states or organisations endorse it, cannot replace a grant condition, an eligibility rule, or an audited agreement; a commitment becomes an instrument only when its signatories can miss a deadline, fail an audit, or lose a resource. Claims that voluntary commitments, soft-law instruments, or 'encourages' language do not produce compliance, or that a document commits (or fails to commit) its own authors. NOT membership: claims that a specific party should require or condition something (conditioned-resources theme).", "judgedDefinitionVersion": "predefined-secondary-v1", "starIds": [], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 0, "claims": 0, "documents": 0 } }, { "id": "M2-conditioned-resources-change-practice", "kind": "convergence", "name": "Practice changes when a named party conditions a valued resource on audited compliance", "definition": "Behaviour changes at field scale when an institution names the responsible party, sets a deadline, defines observable evidence, and conditions a valued resource on compliance: funders make funding, payment, renewal, or future eligibility conditional; journals make publication conditional (deposit as a condition of publication); compliance is monitored and non-compliance sanctioned. Standards or guidelines that control no resource their adopters depend on do not produce field-wide compliance by themselves, however good their technical quality. Claims that funders or journals should require, mandate, monitor, or sanction, that mandates work where voluntary policies do not, or that describe such a conditioned requirement. NOT membership: claims about what makes a requirement feasible or legitimate (support-and-legitimacy theme), or that immediate access itself should be policy (immediate-access theme).", "route": "predefined-secondary", "judgedName": "Practice changes when a named party conditions a valued resource on audited compliance", "judgedDefinition": "Behaviour changes at field scale when an institution names the responsible party, sets a deadline, defines observable evidence, and conditions a valued resource on compliance: funders make funding, payment, renewal, or future eligibility conditional; journals make publication conditional (deposit as a condition of publication); compliance is monitored and non-compliance sanctioned. Standards or guidelines that control no resource their adopters depend on do not produce field-wide compliance by themselves, however good their technical quality. Claims that funders or journals should require, mandate, monitor, or sanction, that mandates work where voluntary policies do not, or that describe such a conditioned requirement. NOT membership: claims about what makes a requirement feasible or legitimate (support-and-legitimacy theme), or that immediate access itself should be policy (immediate-access theme).", "judgedDefinitionVersion": "predefined-secondary-v1", "starIds": [ "open-science-source-24-c2/c17", "open-science-source-24-c3/c26", "osft-doc-1399/c15", "osft-doc-1373/c215", "osft-doc-1373/c475", "osft-doc-1373/c86", "open-science-source-24-c5/c54", "open-science-source-15-c1/c58", "open-science-source-15-c1/c77", "open-science-source-16-c1/c97", "open-science-source-24-c2/c102", "open-science-source-25/c14", "open-science-source-37-c1/c10", "open-science-source-37-c1/c7", "open-science-source-37-c2/c44", "osft-doc-0050/c197", "osft-doc-0150/c187", "osft-doc-0298/c11", "osft-doc-1373/c178", "osft-doc-1507/c30", "open-science-source-28/c10" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 21, "claims": 54, "documents": 30 } }, { "id": "M3-requirements-need-support-and-legitimacy", "kind": "convergence", "name": "A requirement works and stays legitimate only when compliance is feasible, supported, and governed by those it binds", "definition": "Enforcement explains compliance, not value or legitimacy, and can institutionalise a bad rule as easily as a good one. A requirement works and keeps legitimacy when compliance is feasible and paid for (repositories, rights retention, common standards, professional curation, technical support, funded databases), when it covers enough of the field to avoid a persistent competitive penalty, and when the rules are made and revised through a process the affected communities can debate, comment on, and challenge. Claims that mandates must come with infrastructure, support, standards, or curation to be useful, that deposit without standards yields incompatible files, or that policy should be developed with and revisable by the community. NOT membership: how shared infrastructure itself should be governed or financed (infrastructure-obligations theme); that assessment must change (assessment theme).", "route": "predefined-secondary", "judgedName": "A requirement works and stays legitimate only when compliance is feasible, supported, and governed by those it binds", "judgedDefinition": "Enforcement explains compliance, not value or legitimacy, and can institutionalise a bad rule as easily as a good one. A requirement works and keeps legitimacy when compliance is feasible and paid for (repositories, rights retention, common standards, professional curation, technical support, funded databases), when it covers enough of the field to avoid a persistent competitive penalty, and when the rules are made and revised through a process the affected communities can debate, comment on, and challenge. Claims that mandates must come with infrastructure, support, standards, or curation to be useful, that deposit without standards yields incompatible files, or that policy should be developed with and revisable by the community. NOT membership: how shared infrastructure itself should be governed or financed (infrastructure-obligations theme); that assessment must change (assessment theme).", "judgedDefinitionVersion": "predefined-secondary-v1", "starIds": [ "open-science-source-12/c190", "open-science-source-12/c68", "open-science-source-37-c2/c108", "osft-doc-1373/c310", "osft-doc-1373/c476", "osft-doc-1373/c477", "osft-doc-1449/c224", "osft-doc-0050/c12", "osft-doc-0050/c25", "osft-doc-0150/c116", "osft-doc-1507/c161", "osft-doc-0951/c16", "open-science-source-19/c34", "osft-doc-0150/c91", "open-science-source-03/c232", "open-science-source-12/c217", "open-science-source-16-c3/c34", "open-science-source-24-c5/c35", "open-science-source-24-c7/c20", "open-science-source-24-c8/c15", "open-science-source-26/c126", "open-science-source-37-c2/c34", "osft-doc-0050/c123", "osft-doc-0050/c184", "osft-doc-0150/c41", "osft-doc-1353/c11", "osft-doc-1459/c72", "osft-doc-1507/c165", "osft-doc-1507/c168" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 29, "claims": 74, "documents": 34 } }, { "id": "M4-gains-exposed-to-reversal", "kind": "convergence", "name": "Open-science gains remain exposed to policy reversal and short-cycle funding", "definition": "What the movement has won is not secure: policy mandates can be repealed or weakened, programme budgets cut, and the shared services the whole vision presumes run at steady losses on philanthropic or government money renewed one cycle at a time, without durable collective financing. Claims that open-science policies, programmes, or infrastructure are precarious, reversible, under-funded, or dependent on recurring discretionary decisions. NOT membership: the normative claim that infrastructure should be sustainably financed and governed (infrastructure-obligations theme); descriptions of a specific policy's content.", "route": "predefined-secondary", "judgedName": "Open-science gains remain exposed to policy reversal and short-cycle funding", "judgedDefinition": "What the movement has won is not secure: policy mandates can be repealed or weakened, programme budgets cut, and the shared services the whole vision presumes run at steady losses on philanthropic or government money renewed one cycle at a time, without durable collective financing. Claims that open-science policies, programmes, or infrastructure are precarious, reversible, under-funded, or dependent on recurring discretionary decisions. NOT membership: the normative claim that infrastructure should be sustainably financed and governed (infrastructure-obligations theme); descriptions of a specific policy's content.", "judgedDefinitionVersion": "predefined-secondary-v1", "starIds": [], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 0, "claims": 0, "documents": 0 } }, { "id": "V1-ai-volume-outruns-verification", "kind": "convergence", "name": "AI produces plausible output faster than verification can absorb it", "definition": "Generative systems produce competent-looking papers, reviews, and assessments at a marginal cost near zero while establishing that the underlying work is sound stays expensive; the volume of plausible and fabricated output outgrows what output-by-output peer review and the reviewer pool can absorb, dashboards keep counting while per-unit reliability falls, and screening prose for AI signals cannot restore the advantage because generators and detectors use the same models. Validation becomes the scarce function. Claims that AI-generated or fabricated research threatens the integrity or the certifying institutions of science, that peer review cannot scale to the volume, or that AI use in research is rising. NOT membership: what the record must contain to be checkable (checkable-record theme); which tasks machines versus humans should perform (machines-check theme).", "route": "predefined-secondary", "judgedName": "AI produces plausible output faster than verification can absorb it", "judgedDefinition": "Generative systems produce competent-looking papers, reviews, and assessments at a marginal cost near zero while establishing that the underlying work is sound stays expensive; the volume of plausible and fabricated output outgrows what output-by-output peer review and the reviewer pool can absorb, dashboards keep counting while per-unit reliability falls, and screening prose for AI signals cannot restore the advantage because generators and detectors use the same models. Validation becomes the scarce function. Claims that AI-generated or fabricated research threatens the integrity or the certifying institutions of science, that peer review cannot scale to the volume, or that AI use in research is rising. NOT membership: what the record must contain to be checkable (checkable-record theme); which tasks machines versus humans should perform (machines-check theme).", "judgedDefinitionVersion": "predefined-secondary-v1", "starIds": [ "open-science-source-41/c1", "open-science-source-45/c68", "osft-doc-0142/c773", "open-science-source-04/c35", "open-science-source-17/c76", "open-science-source-18/c302", "open-science-source-41/c300", "open-science-source-42/c427", "open-science-source-45/c24", "open-science-source-42/c1", "open-science-source-10/c108", "open-science-source-18/c34", "open-science-source-18/c352", "open-science-source-18/c355", "open-science-source-18/c467", "open-science-source-36/c186" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 16, "claims": 45, "documents": 14 } }, { "id": "V2-checkable-record-with-declared-checks", "kind": "convergence", "name": "The record must make claims checkable: identifiers, typed links, rights, provenance, declared checks, portability", "definition": "Reliable validation at scale needs a record whose relations are explicit, not implicit in prose: persistent identifiers for outputs, contributors, organisations, grants, and every version; typed links from claims to the data, software, methods, protocols, reviews, and corrections that bear on them; machine-readable licensing, attribution, consent, and access conditions naming the approving authority; provenance and version history including material AI contributions; structured declarations of which checks were performed, by whom or what, how, with what result, and which expected checks were NOT performed, so that silence cannot read as certification; and open APIs, bulk export, and portability so another operator can reconstruct the record. Claims that AI use, provenance, or verification status should be recorded in the scholarly record, that validation needs resolvable objects and explicit relations, or that no such attestation standard yet exists. NOT membership: the general claim that the record should be linked, machine-actionable research objects (linked-record theme), or that identifiers and open metadata are needed (identifiers theme) — unless the claim ties them to checking or provenance; who audits certifiers (certification-audit theme).", "route": "predefined-secondary", "judgedName": "The record must make claims checkable: identifiers, typed links, rights, provenance, declared checks, portability", "judgedDefinition": "Reliable validation at scale needs a record whose relations are explicit, not implicit in prose: persistent identifiers for outputs, contributors, organisations, grants, and every version; typed links from claims to the data, software, methods, protocols, reviews, and corrections that bear on them; machine-readable licensing, attribution, consent, and access conditions naming the approving authority; provenance and version history including material AI contributions; structured declarations of which checks were performed, by whom or what, how, with what result, and which expected checks were NOT performed, so that silence cannot read as certification; and open APIs, bulk export, and portability so another operator can reconstruct the record. Claims that AI use, provenance, or verification status should be recorded in the scholarly record, that validation needs resolvable objects and explicit relations, or that no such attestation standard yet exists. NOT membership: the general claim that the record should be linked, machine-actionable research objects (linked-record theme), or that identifiers and open metadata are needed (identifiers theme) — unless the claim ties them to checking or provenance; who audits certifiers (certification-audit theme).", "judgedDefinitionVersion": "predefined-secondary-v1", "starIds": [ "open-science-source-16-c4/c57", "open-science-source-17/c143" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 2, "claims": 4, "documents": 4 } }, { "id": "V3-certification-needs-independent-audit", "kind": "convergence", "name": "A badge or self-declaration certifies nothing; certification must be independently audited and not paid for by the certified", "definition": "Trust markers, badges, and conformance statements carry information only when an independent check stands behind them: a badge that names no check does not establish reliability, an availability badge is not a reproduction audit, and self-audit does not establish conformance. Markers should be sampled and audited with published error rates; the auditor should be paid by the funder or a pooled mechanism, not by the party seeking certification; certifiers should be tested against known cases and record reversals and disputes; and mandatory certification must not concentrate in a dominant certifier that charges for access, discloses little, and controls publication or funding (the issuer-pays structure). Claims that reproducibility or integrity should be independently verified rather than self-reported, or that certification markets need public governance. NOT membership: what the record must contain (checkable-record theme); machine versus human roles (machines-check theme).", "route": "predefined-secondary", "judgedName": "A badge or self-declaration certifies nothing; certification must be independently audited and not paid for by the certified", "judgedDefinition": "Trust markers, badges, and conformance statements carry information only when an independent check stands behind them: a badge that names no check does not establish reliability, an availability badge is not a reproduction audit, and self-audit does not establish conformance. Markers should be sampled and audited with published error rates; the auditor should be paid by the funder or a pooled mechanism, not by the party seeking certification; certifiers should be tested against known cases and record reversals and disputes; and mandatory certification must not concentrate in a dominant certifier that charges for access, discloses little, and controls publication or funding (the issuer-pays structure). Claims that reproducibility or integrity should be independently verified rather than self-reported, or that certification markets need public governance. NOT membership: what the record must contain (checkable-record theme); machine versus human roles (machines-check theme).", "judgedDefinitionVersion": "predefined-secondary-v1", "starIds": [ "open-science-source-16-c3/c36" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 1, "claims": 3, "documents": 2 } }, { "id": "V4-machines-check-humans-judge", "kind": "convergence", "name": "Machines perform bounded, attributable checks; humans retain judgment", "definition": "Automated checks on sufficiently specified closed claims return bounded results — resolves, agrees, executes, predates, permits, or indeterminate — and machines can test identifier resolution, recompute values, run code in declared environments, compare timestamps, flag image similarity, and parse licence terms; humans remain responsible for interpretation, adequacy of methods, significance, ethics, and evidence that does not reduce to a closed test, and AI must not replace peer judgment. Every machine check and human assessment should identify who or what performed it, on which object, by which procedure — never an unexplained seal of approval. Claims that AI should assist rather than replace peer review, that human judgment must remain in evaluation, that blind community evaluation against withheld targets is a model, or that machine checks should be explainable and attributable. NOT membership: that AI volume threatens verification (ai-volume theme); what the record must contain (checkable-record theme).", "route": "predefined-secondary", "judgedName": "Machines perform bounded, attributable checks; humans retain judgment", "judgedDefinition": "Automated checks on sufficiently specified closed claims return bounded results — resolves, agrees, executes, predates, permits, or indeterminate — and machines can test identifier resolution, recompute values, run code in declared environments, compare timestamps, flag image similarity, and parse licence terms; humans remain responsible for interpretation, adequacy of methods, significance, ethics, and evidence that does not reduce to a closed test, and AI must not replace peer judgment. Every machine check and human assessment should identify who or what performed it, on which object, by which procedure — never an unexplained seal of approval. Claims that AI should assist rather than replace peer review, that human judgment must remain in evaluation, that blind community evaluation against withheld targets is a model, or that machine checks should be explainable and attributable. NOT membership: that AI volume threatens verification (ai-volume theme); what the record must contain (checkable-record theme).", "judgedDefinitionVersion": "predefined-secondary-v1", "starIds": [ "open-science-source-45/c285", "open-science-source-18/c208", "osft-doc-0050/c75", "osft-doc-0050/c125" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 4, "claims": 10, "documents": 7 } }, { "id": "V5-machine-reuse-preserves-authority-reciprocity", "kind": "convergence", "name": "Machine reuse of open resources must preserve source, community authority, and reciprocity", "definition": "Machine learning accelerates reuse and can turn openly available data and scholarship into appropriation: commercial systems absorb open scholarship into closed products without attribution, transparency, or reciprocity. The record should preserve the source, contributor, community authority, licence, access condition, and downstream use of each object where possible; those who build models or services from open scientific resources should identify their sources and comply with the conditions attached to them, and return improvements, annotations, or other agreed benefits where community governance requires reciprocity; public availability is not permission to ignore provenance or authority. Claims about the terms on which AI or commercial systems may train on or reuse open research, attribution and benefit-sharing for machine reuse, or appropriation through open dissemination. NOT membership: who decides how open data may be in the first place (consent-and-access axis); whether commercial actors may run infrastructure (commercial-participation axis).", "route": "predefined-secondary", "judgedName": "Machine reuse of open resources must preserve source, community authority, and reciprocity", "judgedDefinition": "Machine learning accelerates reuse and can turn openly available data and scholarship into appropriation: commercial systems absorb open scholarship into closed products without attribution, transparency, or reciprocity. The record should preserve the source, contributor, community authority, licence, access condition, and downstream use of each object where possible; those who build models or services from open scientific resources should identify their sources and comply with the conditions attached to them, and return improvements, annotations, or other agreed benefits where community governance requires reciprocity; public availability is not permission to ignore provenance or authority. Claims about the terms on which AI or commercial systems may train on or reuse open research, attribution and benefit-sharing for machine reuse, or appropriation through open dissemination. NOT membership: who decides how open data may be in the first place (consent-and-access axis); whether commercial actors may run infrastructure (commercial-participation axis).", "judgedDefinitionVersion": "predefined-secondary-v1", "starIds": [ "open-science-source-26/c53" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 1, "claims": 2, "documents": 2 } }, { "id": "C01-open-science-needs-infrastructure-making", "kind": "convergence", "name": "Open science needs infrastructure making outputs findable and practically, not just nominally, open", "definition": "Members converge on the claim that realizing open science requires building and maintaining infrastructure — repositories, discovery/search tools, identifiers, open-source software stacks, high-performance computing — that makes papers, data, materials, and software genuinely findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable (FAIR), and that mere formal openness is insufficient unless outputs are practically obtainable and easy to use. A related strand holds that funders and institutions, not individual researchers, should bear open-access costs and ensure equitable, non-commercial governance of this infrastructure. It excludes claims about specific policy mandates' scope (e.g., which OA license or embargo applies) and excludes empirical claims that a particular named roadmap or organization's mission aligns with open-scholarship goals, which are self-referential meta-claims rather than substantive infrastructure positions.", "route": "corpus", "coherence": "medium", "judgedName": "Open science needs infrastructure making outputs findable and practically, not just nominally, open", "judgedDefinition": "Members converge on the claim that realizing open science requires building and maintaining infrastructure — repositories, discovery/search tools, identifiers, open-source software stacks, high-performance computing — that makes papers, data, materials, and software genuinely findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable (FAIR), and that mere formal openness is insufficient unless outputs are practically obtainable and easy to use. A related strand holds that funders and institutions, not individual researchers, should bear open-access costs and ensure equitable, non-commercial governance of this infrastructure. It excludes claims about specific policy mandates' scope (e.g., which OA license or embargo applies) and excludes empirical claims that a particular named roadmap or organization's mission aligns with open-scholarship goals, which are self-referential meta-claims rather than substantive infrastructure positions.", "judgedDefinitionVersion": "topdown-ext-v2", "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0020/c74", "osft-doc-1193/c57", "open-science-source-24-c3/c15", "open-science-source-24-c3/c14", "osft-doc-0645/c44", "open-science-source-20/c17", "osft-doc-1193/c105", "osft-doc-0730/c12", "open-science-source-05/c16", "open-science-source-10/c186", "osft-doc-1283/c71", "open-science-source-24-c5/c33", "osft-doc-0825/c54", "osft-doc-1327/c170", "osft-doc-1327/c220", "osft-doc-1373/c101", "osft-doc-1373/c116", "osft-doc-1373/c138", "osft-doc-1373/c139", "osft-doc-1373/c173", "open-science-source-03/c191", "osft-doc-1373/c385", "osft-doc-1327/c1007", "open-science-source-03/c58", "open-science-source-05/c69", "open-science-source-05/c73", "open-science-source-09/c43", "open-science-source-09/c44", "open-science-source-15-c1/c4", "open-science-source-22/c31", "open-science-source-24-c1/c30", "osft-doc-0298/c135", "osft-doc-0504/c29", "osft-doc-0504/c30", "osft-doc-0504/c31", "osft-doc-0504/c32", "osft-doc-0645/c93", "osft-doc-1373/c100" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 38, "claims": 122, "documents": 56 } }, { "id": "C02-open-science-reform-requires-broad", "kind": "convergence", "name": "Open science reform requires broad collaboration among universities, funders, libraries, and publishers", "definition": "Members assert that transitioning to open science and scholarly communication requires coordinated, cross-stakeholder collaboration—among universities, research institutions, funders, libraries, publishers, learned societies, national bodies, and researchers. This includes calls to build shared infrastructure, governance structures, coalitions, and coordination mechanisms, and to adopt joint statements or policies supporting the transition. It excludes positions that specify particular open-science practices or norms (such as data-sharing behavior, peer-review methods, or repository use) without framing them as a matter of multi-stakeholder coordination or collaborative governance.", "route": "corpus", "coherence": "medium", "judgedName": "Open science reform requires broad collaboration among universities, funders, libraries, and publishers", "judgedDefinition": "Members assert that transitioning to open science and scholarly communication requires coordinated, cross-stakeholder collaboration—among universities, research institutions, funders, libraries, publishers, learned societies, national bodies, and researchers. This includes calls to build shared infrastructure, governance structures, coalitions, and coordination mechanisms, and to adopt joint statements or policies supporting the transition. It excludes positions that specify particular open-science practices or norms (such as data-sharing behavior, peer-review methods, or repository use) without framing them as a matter of multi-stakeholder coordination or collaborative governance.", "judgedDefinitionVersion": "topdown-ext-v2", "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1673/c80", "open-science-source-03/c48", "osft-doc-1673/c12", "osft-doc-1327/c489", "osft-doc-1373/c150", "open-science-source-37-c1/c208", "osft-doc-1327/c1060", "osft-doc-1459/c157", "osft-doc-0504/c51", "osft-doc-1449/c60", "open-science-source-03/c162", "open-science-source-21/c95", "open-science-source-42/c123", "osft-doc-0150/c20", "osft-doc-1373/c137", "osft-doc-1373/c81", "osft-doc-1673/c24", "open-science-source-05/c57", "osft-doc-1327/c727" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 19, "claims": 52, "documents": 28 } }, { "id": "C03-open-science-is-a-broad", "kind": "convergence", "name": "Open science is a broad cultural and structural transformation of research now underway but still incomplete.", "definition": "Members assert that open science is not a single reform but a fundamental, wholesale culture change that must be embedded across every level of research, education, and knowledge exchange, and that this transition is a gradual, ongoing process showing steady progress rather than a completed event. They point to recurring actors and mechanisms such as universities, researchers, and stakeholders whose workflows, incentives, and practices must shift toward transparency and openness, often via phased implementation. Positions belong here if they characterize the scale, pace, or nature of the shift itself (paradigm shift, culture change, phased process, progress made). They do NOT belong here if they instead describe a specific mechanism, cost effect, sector, historical origin point, or policy instrument driving that shift (e.g., a named roadmap, the FAIR principles' origin, or pharmaceutical industry adoption), since those are concrete instances rather than characterizations of the transformation's nature.", "route": "corpus", "coherence": "medium", "judgedName": "Open science is a broad cultural and structural transformation of research now underway but still incomplete.", "judgedDefinition": "Members assert that open science is not a single reform but a fundamental, wholesale culture change that must be embedded across every level of research, education, and knowledge exchange, and that this transition is a gradual, ongoing process showing steady progress rather than a completed event. They point to recurring actors and mechanisms such as universities, researchers, and stakeholders whose workflows, incentives, and practices must shift toward transparency and openness, often via phased implementation. Positions belong here if they characterize the scale, pace, or nature of the shift itself (paradigm shift, culture change, phased process, progress made). They do NOT belong here if they instead describe a specific mechanism, cost effect, sector, historical origin point, or policy instrument driving that shift (e.g., a named roadmap, the FAIR principles' origin, or pharmaceutical industry adoption), since those are concrete instances rather than characterizations of the transformation's nature.", "judgedDefinitionVersion": "topdown-ext-v2", "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0138/c5", "osft-doc-0268/c22", "osft-doc-1327/c1049", "osft-doc-1737/c60", "open-science-source-06/c266", "osft-doc-1283/c22", "osft-doc-0138/c13", "osft-doc-1449/c474", "osft-doc-1449/c479", "osft-doc-1646/c26", "osft-doc-0050/c190", "osft-doc-0441/c44", "open-science-source-15-c2/c109", "open-science-source-12/c41", "osft-doc-1449/c8", "osft-doc-0825/c62", "osft-doc-1459/c325", "osft-doc-1673/c284", "osft-doc-0268/c5", "open-science-source-05/c53", "osft-doc-0441/c2", "osft-doc-1869/c72", "open-science-source-53/c15", "osft-doc-0441/c317", "osft-doc-0441/c1" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 25, "claims": 117, "documents": 42 } }, { "id": "C04-open-scholarship-should-give-everyone", "kind": "convergence", "name": "Open scholarship should give everyone free, equal access to and participation in knowledge.", "definition": "Members converge on the idea that knowledge, research articles, data, and scholarly processes should be freely available to all, and that everyone should have equal rights to access, contribute to, and help govern the open scholarship community. Several members treat this openness as a democratic and human right (equal access, equal possibilities to contribute, equal rights in community decisions), while others assert it empirically as already happening or as economically achievable rather than utopian. It does not cover positions about specific technical or legal mechanisms of openness unrelated to scholarly participation, such as general public-sector freedom-of-information procedures, or positions about licensing, funding models, or infrastructure that do not invoke equality, participation, or the free availability of scholarly content.", "route": "corpus", "coherence": "high", "judgedName": "Open scholarship should give everyone free, equal access to and participation in knowledge.", "judgedDefinition": "Members converge on the idea that knowledge, research articles, data, and scholarly processes should be freely available to all, and that everyone should have equal rights to access, contribute to, and help govern the open scholarship community. Several members treat this openness as a democratic and human right (equal access, equal possibilities to contribute, equal rights in community decisions), while others assert it empirically as already happening or as economically achievable rather than utopian. It does not cover positions about specific technical or legal mechanisms of openness unrelated to scholarly participation, such as general public-sector freedom-of-information procedures, or positions about licensing, funding models, or infrastructure that do not invoke equality, participation, or the free availability of scholarly content.", "judgedDefinitionVersion": "topdown-ext-v2", "starIds": [ "open-science-source-24-c2/c1", "osft-doc-0002/c2", "osft-doc-0002/c3", "osft-doc-1459/c273", "osft-doc-0114/c18", "open-science-source-09/c5", "osft-doc-0411/c2", "osft-doc-1459/c468", "open-science-source-36/c70", "osft-doc-1283/c4", "osft-doc-1459/c668", "osft-doc-1869/c132", "osft-doc-1373/c305", "osft-doc-1373/c306", "osft-doc-1373/c307", "osft-doc-1373/c308", "osft-doc-1373/c527", "osft-doc-1459/c276", "osft-doc-1459/c278", "open-science-source-03/c176", "osft-doc-1283/c10", "osft-doc-1459/c266", "open-science-source-04/c154", "open-science-source-10/c17", "open-science-source-25/c1", "osft-doc-0504/c10", "osft-doc-0504/c26", "osft-doc-1373/c309", "osft-doc-1373/c487", "osft-doc-1459/c271", "osft-doc-1459/c272" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 31, "claims": 97, "documents": 42 } }, { "id": "C05-institutions-states-and-researchers-should", "kind": "convergence", "name": "Institutions, states, and researchers should build training, communities, and coordination to grow open scholarship.", "definition": "Members hold that different actors — individual researchers, research groups, universities, and Member States — should actively construct the human and organizational infrastructure needed to spread and sustain open science/open scholarship: training programs and curricula, digital-literacy and skills capacity, local communities and mentorship networks, enabling national policies and legal frameworks, and coordinating bodies or designated leaders (steering committees, senior administrators, aligned strategies) that align efforts across levels. A position belongs here if it prescribes building, training, connecting, or coordinating people and institutions around open science, rather than prescribing a specific open-science practice, output, or technical standard itself (e.g., a data-sharing format or licensing rule). It also excludes claims purely about the content of research integrity practices unrelated to capacity/community building.", "route": "corpus", "coherence": "medium", "judgedName": "Institutions, states, and researchers should build training, communities, and coordination to grow open scholarship.", "judgedDefinition": "Members hold that different actors — individual researchers, research groups, universities, and Member States — should actively construct the human and organizational infrastructure needed to spread and sustain open science/open scholarship: training programs and curricula, digital-literacy and skills capacity, local communities and mentorship networks, enabling national policies and legal frameworks, and coordinating bodies or designated leaders (steering committees, senior administrators, aligned strategies) that align efforts across levels. A position belongs here if it prescribes building, training, connecting, or coordinating people and institutions around open science, rather than prescribing a specific open-science practice, output, or technical standard itself (e.g., a data-sharing format or licensing rule). It also excludes claims purely about the content of research integrity practices unrelated to capacity/community building.", "judgedDefinitionVersion": "topdown-ext-v2", "starIds": [ "open-science-source-03/c227", "osft-doc-0002/c28", "open-science-source-03/c225", "osft-doc-0002/c33", "osft-doc-1373/c49", "osft-doc-1373/c582", "osft-doc-0150/c207", "open-science-source-25/c35", "open-science-source-37-c1/c51", "osft-doc-0150/c105", "open-science-source-03/c223", "osft-doc-0068/c39", "osft-doc-1449/c348", "open-science-source-10/c149", "osft-doc-0050/c106", "osft-doc-0050/c107", "osft-doc-1327/c659", "osft-doc-1373/c159", "osft-doc-1373/c167", "osft-doc-1373/c169", "osft-doc-1373/c447", "osft-doc-1373/c75", "osft-doc-1459/c44", "osft-doc-1459/c66", "osft-doc-1459/c67" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 25, "claims": 68, "documents": 18 } }, { "id": "C06-scholarly-communication-s-journals-infrastructure", "kind": "convergence", "name": "Scholarly communication's journals, infrastructure, preprints, and research output have all rapidly proliferated.", "definition": "Members are empirical observations that the number, variety, or volume of elements in the scholarly communication ecosystem — OA journals, publishing business models, research infrastructure, preprints, data repositories, assessment practices, and overall research output — has grown or diversified, often described as rapid, exponential, or an \"explosion\" of innovation. The recurring objects are quantities and varieties of publishing/infrastructure options and of research outputs (papers, datasets, preprints), not their quality, funding, or governance. A position would NOT belong here if it made a normative claim about how growth should be managed, explained why growth occurred, or described a static current practice rather than a trend of increase or proliferation over time.", "route": "corpus", "coherence": "high", "judgedName": "Scholarly communication's journals, infrastructure, preprints, and research output have all rapidly proliferated.", "judgedDefinition": "Members are empirical observations that the number, variety, or volume of elements in the scholarly communication ecosystem — OA journals, publishing business models, research infrastructure, preprints, data repositories, assessment practices, and overall research output — has grown or diversified, often described as rapid, exponential, or an \"explosion\" of innovation. The recurring objects are quantities and varieties of publishing/infrastructure options and of research outputs (papers, datasets, preprints), not their quality, funding, or governance. A position would NOT belong here if it made a normative claim about how growth should be managed, explained why growth occurred, or described a static current practice rather than a trend of increase or proliferation over time.", "judgedDefinitionVersion": "topdown-ext-v2", "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1373/c585", "open-science-source-02/c6", "osft-doc-0441/c218", "osft-doc-0050/c122", "open-science-source-25/c38", "osft-doc-0142/c1195", "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-04/c31", "open-science-source-12/c14", "open-science-source-37-c1/c83", "osft-doc-0645/c30", "osft-doc-1373/c241", "osft-doc-1373/c471" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 17, "claims": 42, "documents": 23 } }, { "id": "C07-peer-review-remains-central-to", "kind": "convergence", "name": "Peer review remains central to research assessment but should become more transparent, open, and less burdensome.", "definition": "This cluster covers claims that peer review — experts assessing research proposals, outputs, researchers, or units — is the primary, well-established method for judging research quality and deciding funding, publication, and assessment outcomes. It includes descriptive/definitional statements about how peer review is organised and staffed (volunteer reviewers, editorial coordination, disciplinary steps), and normative calls to improve it: making processes and review-system details openly available, requiring open materials and citation in reviews, reducing burden on reviewers, and undertaking systemic transformation of the practice. A position belongs here if it concerns the peer review process itself (its status, definition, quality, transparency, or workload); it does NOT belong if it concerns open access publishing economics, licensing, data sharing mandates, or research assessment criteria unrelated to the review process.", "route": "corpus", "coherence": "medium", "judgedName": "Peer review remains central to research assessment but should become more transparent, open, and less burdensome.", "judgedDefinition": "This cluster covers claims that peer review — experts assessing research proposals, outputs, researchers, or units — is the primary, well-established method for judging research quality and deciding funding, publication, and assessment outcomes. It includes descriptive/definitional statements about how peer review is organised and staffed (volunteer reviewers, editorial coordination, disciplinary steps), and normative calls to improve it: making processes and review-system details openly available, requiring open materials and citation in reviews, reducing burden on reviewers, and undertaking systemic transformation of the practice. A position belongs here if it concerns the peer review process itself (its status, definition, quality, transparency, or workload); it does NOT belong if it concerns open access publishing economics, licensing, data sharing mandates, or research assessment criteria unrelated to the review process.", "judgedDefinitionVersion": "topdown-ext-v2", "starIds": [ "open-science-source-18/c511", "open-science-source-18/c96", "osft-doc-1047/c5", "open-science-source-18/c1", "open-science-source-04/c39", "open-science-source-04/c109", "open-science-source-15-c1/c60", "open-science-source-15-c2/c57", "open-science-source-18/c20", "open-science-source-18/c407", "open-science-source-36/c207", "osft-doc-1702/c104", "open-science-source-18/c518", "open-science-source-18/c516", "osft-doc-1327/c775", "osft-doc-1353/c146", "open-science-source-15-c1/c61", "open-science-source-18/c144", "open-science-source-18/c17", "open-science-source-18/c220", "open-science-source-18/c47", "open-science-source-18/c515", "open-science-source-18/c700", "open-science-source-42/c284", "osft-doc-0108/c18", "osft-doc-0142/c24", "osft-doc-1327/c1114", "osft-doc-1373/c53", "osft-doc-1373/c54", "osft-doc-1373/c55" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 30, "claims": 81, "documents": 25 } }, { "id": "C08-stakeholders-disciplines-and-contexts-interpret", "kind": "convergence", "name": "Stakeholders, disciplines, and contexts interpret and value openness, quality, and rigor differently.", "definition": "Members hold that scholarly communication involves many stakeholder groups (researchers, institutions, disciplines, career stages) whose goals, motivations, and interests often diverge or conflict. This heterogeneity means core concepts such as quality, reproducibility, replicability, peer-review standards, openness itself, and the effectiveness of mandates or training are not fixed but vary by discipline, context, or enforcement, existing on a spectrum rather than as absolutes. A new position belongs here if it asserts that variation across disciplines or stakeholders explains differing interpretations or conflicting priorities in open science. It would not belong if it instead prescribes a specific policy solution, describes a technical mechanism, or reports an outcome of openness without reference to this underlying diversity.", "route": "corpus", "coherence": "high", "judgedName": "Stakeholders, disciplines, and contexts interpret and value openness, quality, and rigor differently.", "judgedDefinition": "Members hold that scholarly communication involves many stakeholder groups (researchers, institutions, disciplines, career stages) whose goals, motivations, and interests often diverge or conflict. This heterogeneity means core concepts such as quality, reproducibility, replicability, peer-review standards, openness itself, and the effectiveness of mandates or training are not fixed but vary by discipline, context, or enforcement, existing on a spectrum rather than as absolutes. A new position belongs here if it asserts that variation across disciplines or stakeholders explains differing interpretations or conflicting priorities in open science. It would not belong if it instead prescribes a specific policy solution, describes a technical mechanism, or reports an outcome of openness without reference to this underlying diversity.", "judgedDefinitionVersion": "topdown-ext-v2", "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1459/c312", "osft-doc-1327/c299", "osft-doc-1327/c691", "osft-doc-0020/c7", "osft-doc-1327/c60", "osft-doc-1327/c416", "osft-doc-1459/c315", "osft-doc-1673/c131", "osft-doc-1327/c1083", "osft-doc-1373/c288", "osft-doc-1459/c314", "open-science-source-18/c167", "open-science-source-04/c12", "osft-doc-1373/c282", "open-science-source-38/c298", "osft-doc-1373/c537", "open-science-source-05/c66", "open-science-source-18/c452", "open-science-source-37-c1/c120", "open-science-source-41/c423", "open-science-source-50/c72", "osft-doc-0050/c171", "osft-doc-0142/c679", "osft-doc-0142/c694" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 24, "claims": 72, "documents": 21 } }, { "id": "C09-open-infrastructure-platforms-tools-technologies", "kind": "convergence", "name": "Open infrastructure (platforms, tools, technologies) enables and underpins open science practices.", "definition": "Members claim that technical infrastructure—platforms, tools, workflows, and open-source technologies—is what makes open science and open scholarship practically possible, and some define what qualifies as \"open scholarly infrastructure\" (trustworthy, reliable, used for sharing research information). The cluster includes claims about existing infrastructure already available to support open scholarship, its lower cost relative to traditional publishing, and specific examples (e.g., Google Scholar, citizen-science apps). It would NOT include positions about who should fund infrastructure, governance/ownership debates, or policy mandates requiring specific platforms—those concern control and incentives rather than the enabling or defining role of infrastructure itself.", "route": "corpus", "coherence": "high", "judgedName": "Open infrastructure (platforms, tools, technologies) enables and underpins open science practices.", "judgedDefinition": "Members claim that technical infrastructure—platforms, tools, workflows, and open-source technologies—is what makes open science and open scholarship practically possible, and some define what qualifies as \"open scholarly infrastructure\" (trustworthy, reliable, used for sharing research information). The cluster includes claims about existing infrastructure already available to support open scholarship, its lower cost relative to traditional publishing, and specific examples (e.g., Google Scholar, citizen-science apps). It would NOT include positions about who should fund infrastructure, governance/ownership debates, or policy mandates requiring specific platforms—those concern control and incentives rather than the enabling or defining role of infrastructure itself.", "judgedDefinitionVersion": "topdown-ext-v2", "starIds": [ "open-science-source-37-c2/c10", "osft-doc-1373/c367", "open-science-source-09/c53", "osft-doc-1373/c589", "osft-doc-1646/c48", "osft-doc-1673/c237", "osft-doc-1507/c129", "osft-doc-1353/c104", "open-science-source-05/c90", "open-science-source-21/c78", "osft-doc-1869/c63", "osft-doc-1507/c138", "open-science-source-03/c107", "open-science-source-05/c54", "open-science-source-05/c95", "open-science-source-05/c99", "osft-doc-0836/c17", "osft-doc-0836/c90", "osft-doc-1373/c351", "osft-doc-1373/c359", "osft-doc-1373/c366", "osft-doc-1878/c168" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 22, "claims": 57, "documents": 29 } }, { "id": "C10-institutions-and-communities-should-train", "kind": "convergence", "name": "Institutions and communities should train students and researchers in open, reproducible scholarship practices.", "definition": "Members converge on the claim that formal training, teaching, and mentoring in open and reproducible research practices should be embedded in higher education and institutional structures, benefiting students, early-career researchers, and science broadly. A large sub-set describes FORRT specifically as a community-driven infrastructure that provides pedagogical resources, mentorship, and support to lower the cost of adopting open, rigorous teaching practices, while other members note similar training roles for organizations like CREP, The Carpentries, and the RDA Early Career Interest Group. New positions belong here if they assert that some actor (university, institution, community initiative) should or does provide training, education, or mentorship to advance open-science skills or practices. Positions belong only if they specifically concern *training/education/mentoring mechanisms*; the cluster excludes broader claims about universities' general societal purpose (e.g., serving the public good) that are not framed around training, and excludes purely terminological definitions unrelated to training content.", "route": "corpus", "coherence": "medium", "judgedName": "Institutions and communities should train students and researchers in open, reproducible scholarship practices.", "judgedDefinition": "Members converge on the claim that formal training, teaching, and mentoring in open and reproducible research practices should be embedded in higher education and institutional structures, benefiting students, early-career researchers, and science broadly. A large sub-set describes FORRT specifically as a community-driven infrastructure that provides pedagogical resources, mentorship, and support to lower the cost of adopting open, rigorous teaching practices, while other members note similar training roles for organizations like CREP, The Carpentries, and the RDA Early Career Interest Group. New positions belong here if they assert that some actor (university, institution, community initiative) should or does provide training, education, or mentorship to advance open-science skills or practices. Positions belong only if they specifically concern *training/education/mentoring mechanisms*; the cluster excludes broader claims about universities' general societal purpose (e.g., serving the public good) that are not framed around training, and excludes purely terminological definitions unrelated to training content.", "judgedDefinitionVersion": "topdown-ext-v2", "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1869/c152", "osft-doc-1869/c256", "osft-doc-1673/c100", "osft-doc-1373/c158", "osft-doc-1673/c103", "osft-doc-1878/c81", "osft-doc-1373/c203", "osft-doc-1373/c204", "osft-doc-0441/c16", "osft-doc-1878/c193", "osft-doc-0150/c98", "osft-doc-0441/c12", "osft-doc-0441/c171", "osft-doc-0441/c272", "osft-doc-0441/c275", "osft-doc-0441/c294", "osft-doc-0441/c8", "osft-doc-1878/c319", "osft-doc-0441/c193", "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/c308", "osft-doc-0441/c84", "osft-doc-1869/c210", "osft-doc-0441/c326", "osft-doc-0441/c48", "osft-doc-0441/c325", "osft-doc-0441/c11", "open-science-source-03/c229", "open-science-source-24-c7/c11", "open-science-source-24-c7/c12", "open-science-source-24-c7/c13", "open-science-source-24-c7/c14", "osft-doc-0050/c101", "osft-doc-0050/c102", "osft-doc-0050/c111", "osft-doc-0050/c112", "osft-doc-0050/c113", "osft-doc-0050/c114", "osft-doc-0050/c116", "osft-doc-0050/c15", "osft-doc-0441/c13", "osft-doc-0441/c140", "osft-doc-0441/c141", "osft-doc-0441/c256", "osft-doc-0441/c274", "osft-doc-0441/c277", "osft-doc-0441/c278", "osft-doc-0441/c279", "osft-doc-0441/c296", "osft-doc-0441/c297", "osft-doc-0441/c298", "osft-doc-0441/c305", "osft-doc-0441/c306", "osft-doc-0441/c52", "osft-doc-0441/c71", "osft-doc-0441/c92", "osft-doc-1373/c151", "osft-doc-1878/c192", "osft-doc-1878/c287" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 64, "claims": 157, "documents": 16 } }, { "id": "C11-individuals-and-institutions-should-adopt", "kind": "convergence", "name": "Individuals and institutions should adopt open source tools and practices throughout the research workflow.", "definition": "Members recommend that researchers and institutions choose open source software, hardware, and infrastructure over proprietary alternatives, and that individuals engage openly by commenting on preprints, joining public discussions, sharing presentations, and using collaborative or executable writing tools. They also call for openly documenting and structuring research (pre-registration, lab notebooks) and for reusing existing data, code, or workflows rather than duplicating work. A position belongs here if it prescribes a concrete open-source tool, platform, or workflow practice for individuals or institutions to adopt. It does NOT belong if it is an empirical observation about trends in openness (e.g., adoption rates improving) or a claim about the societal effects/equity implications of open data, since those describe outcomes rather than prescribe adoption behavior.", "route": "corpus", "coherence": "medium", "judgedName": "Individuals and institutions should adopt open source tools and practices throughout the research workflow.", "judgedDefinition": "Members recommend that researchers and institutions choose open source software, hardware, and infrastructure over proprietary alternatives, and that individuals engage openly by commenting on preprints, joining public discussions, sharing presentations, and using collaborative or executable writing tools. They also call for openly documenting and structuring research (pre-registration, lab notebooks) and for reusing existing data, code, or workflows rather than duplicating work. A position belongs here if it prescribes a concrete open-source tool, platform, or workflow practice for individuals or institutions to adopt. It does NOT belong if it is an empirical observation about trends in openness (e.g., adoption rates improving) or a claim about the societal effects/equity implications of open data, since those describe outcomes rather than prescribe adoption behavior.", "judgedDefinitionVersion": "topdown-ext-v2", "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0020/c68", "osft-doc-1373/c26", "osft-doc-1673/c87", "osft-doc-1673/c8", "osft-doc-1373/c77", "osft-doc-1612/c59", "open-science-source-02/c28", "osft-doc-0050/c194", "osft-doc-1373/c21", "osft-doc-1373/c22", "osft-doc-1373/c24", "osft-doc-1373/c27", "osft-doc-1373/c28", "osft-doc-1373/c30", "osft-doc-1373/c31", "osft-doc-1373/c34", "osft-doc-1373/c35", "osft-doc-1373/c39", "osft-doc-1373/c52", "osft-doc-1373/c63", "osft-doc-1373/c179" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 21, "claims": 55, "documents": 17 } }, { "id": "C12-implementing-open-science-practices-imposes", "kind": "convergence", "name": "Implementing open science practices imposes significant, often hard-to-determine costs", "definition": "Members claim that adopting open science entails real costs: building and running infrastructure and services, supporting open publishing/data/code practices, capacity building, and enabling collaborative research models. Other members give concrete instances of these costs — article processing charges, forking, certificates, embargo compliance systems, subscriptions outpacing library budgets — and note that such costs vary by data type/discipline and are often difficult to pin down. A new position belongs here if it identifies a cost, expense, or resource burden tied to open science infrastructure, practices, or compliance mechanisms. It would NOT belong if it addresses unrelated costs (e.g., climate mitigation investment) or if it concerns benefits/value rather than cost/expense of open science.", "route": "corpus", "coherence": "medium", "judgedName": "Implementing open science practices imposes significant, often hard-to-determine costs", "judgedDefinition": "Members claim that adopting open science entails real costs: building and running infrastructure and services, supporting open publishing/data/code practices, capacity building, and enabling collaborative research models. Other members give concrete instances of these costs — repository labor, forking, certificates, embargo compliance systems, subscriptions outpacing library budgets — and note that such costs vary by data type/discipline and are often difficult to pin down. A new position belongs here if it identifies a cost, expense, or resource burden tied to open science infrastructure, practices, or compliance mechanisms. It would NOT belong if it addresses unrelated costs (e.g., climate mitigation investment) or if it concerns benefits/value rather than cost/expense of open science.", "judgedDefinitionVersion": "topdown-ext-v2", "starIds": [ "open-science-source-24-c3/c37", "osft-doc-0836/c67", "open-science-source-03/c171", "osft-doc-1449/c465", "open-science-source-29/c26", "osft-doc-1373/c597", "open-science-source-03/c170", "open-science-source-03/c172", "open-science-source-03/c173", "open-science-source-04/c28", "open-science-source-20/c6", "open-science-source-24-c7/c21", "osft-doc-1507/c25" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 13, "claims": 34, "documents": 21 } }, { "id": "C13-the-scholarly-publishing-system-s", "kind": "convergence", "name": "The scholarly publishing system's licensing, embargo, and funder-publisher conflicts block access to research", "definition": "Members describe concrete mechanisms within the scholarly publishing system—paywalls, subscription-only licenses, complex material transfer agreements, lengthy embargoes, and mismatched funder versus publisher policies—that restrict who can read, reuse, or rapidly share research, and note that industry actors (e.g. pharmaceutical companies) face extra versions of these barriers. It also covers the resulting normative concern that harmonising these policies must not create a proliferation of incompatible one-off licenses. A new position belongs here if it identifies a specific legal, licensing, embargo, or policy-conflict mechanism that impedes access to or dissemination of research. It would NOT belong if it instead proposes a general solution or benefit of open access (e.g. mandates, funding models), or if it addresses publisher-side operational concerns unrelated to access, such as quality control or research provenance.", "route": "corpus", "coherence": "high", "judgedName": "The scholarly publishing system's licensing, embargo, and funder-publisher conflicts block access to research", "judgedDefinition": "Members describe concrete mechanisms within the scholarly publishing system—paywalls, subscription-only licenses, complex material transfer agreements, lengthy embargoes, and mismatched funder versus publisher policies—that restrict who can read, reuse, or rapidly share research, and note that industry actors (e.g. pharmaceutical companies) face extra versions of these barriers. It also covers the resulting normative concern that harmonising these policies must not create a proliferation of incompatible one-off licenses. A new position belongs here if it identifies a specific legal, licensing, embargo, or policy-conflict mechanism that impedes access to or dissemination of research. It would NOT belong if it instead proposes a general solution or benefit of open access (e.g. mandates, funding models), or if it addresses publisher-side operational concerns unrelated to access, such as quality control or research provenance.", "judgedDefinitionVersion": "topdown-ext-v2", "starIds": [ "open-science-source-21/c16", "osft-doc-1373/c591", "osft-doc-1373/c596", "osft-doc-1673/c225", "open-science-source-36/c242", "open-science-source-05/c33", "open-science-source-05/c34", "osft-doc-1373/c279", "osft-doc-1373/c590", "osft-doc-1373/c598", "osft-doc-1373/c599" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 11, "claims": 27, "documents": 11 } }, { "id": "C14-research-is-beset-by-fragmentation", "kind": "convergence", "name": "Research is beset by fragmentation, low reproducibility, and questionable practices", "definition": "Members assert that the current research environment suffers from recognized, widespread problems: questionable research practices are prevalent and cause harm, reproducibility and replicability rates are worryingly low across many fields, and research processes are fragmented (data, methods, and code held separately, unclear collaboration pathways) and structurally complex, with added barriers for interdisciplinary and machine-learning-driven work. It also includes the observation that keeping track of which findings replicate is difficult for scholars. This cluster is bounded to empirical descriptions of these systemic problems; it excludes proposed remedies, policies, or normative calls to fix them (e.g., mandates for preregistration or data sharing), and excludes claims about the benefits or successes of open-science practices.", "route": "corpus", "coherence": "medium", "judgedName": "Research is beset by fragmentation, low reproducibility, and questionable practices", "judgedDefinition": "Members assert that the current research environment suffers from recognized, widespread problems: questionable research practices are prevalent and cause harm, reproducibility and replicability rates are worryingly low across many fields, and research processes are fragmented (data, methods, and code held separately, unclear collaboration pathways) and structurally complex, with added barriers for interdisciplinary and machine-learning-driven work. It also includes the observation that keeping track of which findings replicate is difficult for scholars. This cluster is bounded to empirical descriptions of these systemic problems; it excludes proposed remedies, policies, or normative calls to fix them (e.g., mandates for preregistration or data sharing), and excludes claims about the benefits or successes of open-science practices.", "judgedDefinitionVersion": "topdown-ext-v2", "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0441/c40", "osft-doc-1373/c273", "osft-doc-0138/c7", "osft-doc-0441/c41", "open-science-source-12/c16", "open-science-source-36/c188", "open-science-source-36/c190", "osft-doc-0050/c173", "osft-doc-0441/c261", "osft-doc-0441/c37", "osft-doc-0441/c38" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 11, "claims": 25, "documents": 15 } }, { "id": "C15-open-science-and-citizen-science", "kind": "convergence", "name": "Open science and citizen science need sustained funding, skills, and career support.", "definition": "Members claim that open science and citizen science activities cannot be sustained without deliberate investment: in funding programmes, in training and outreach skills for researchers, in specialist support roles, and in stable career pathways that keep talented people in the knowledge sector. The recurring actors are institutions, funders, and stakeholders who are urged to build capacity, provide resources, and create incentives or job security for researchers, specialists, and community networks. A position belongs here if it calls for resourcing (money, skills, staff, or career stability) to sustain research or open-science infrastructure/practice; it does NOT belong if it instead specifies what content, data, or outputs should be open, or how openness should be practiced technically, rather than how it should be resourced or staffed.", "route": "corpus", "coherence": "medium", "judgedName": "Open science and citizen science need sustained funding, skills, and career support.", "judgedDefinition": "Members claim that open science and citizen science activities cannot be sustained without deliberate investment: in funding programmes, in training and outreach skills for researchers, in specialist support roles, and in stable career pathways that keep talented people in the knowledge sector. The recurring actors are institutions, funders, and stakeholders who are urged to build capacity, provide resources, and create incentives or job security for researchers, specialists, and community networks. A position belongs here if it calls for resourcing (money, skills, staff, or career stability) to sustain research or open-science infrastructure/practice; it does NOT belong if it instead specifies what content, data, or outputs should be open, or how openness should be practiced technically, rather than how it should be resourced or staffed.", "judgedDefinitionVersion": "topdown-ext-v2", "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1373/c588", "osft-doc-1327/c1023", "open-science-source-03/c213", "open-science-source-37-c2/c95", "osft-doc-0050/c103", "osft-doc-0050/c133", "osft-doc-1283/c124", "osft-doc-1373/c145" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 8, "claims": 18, "documents": 12 } }, { "id": "C16-persistent-evidence-guidance-infrastructure-and", "kind": "convergence", "name": "Persistent evidence, guidance, infrastructure, and awareness gaps impede open science practices.", "definition": "Members identify specific deficits — missing evidence, unclear costs or processes, fragmented guidance, limited tools/infrastructure, or low awareness — that hold back concrete open-science practices such as FAIR data certification, data sharing, reproducibility interventions, and data reuse. A position belongs here if it names what is lacking (research, evidence, clarity, skills, infrastructure, guidance, or tools) and links that gap to why a practice is underdeveloped or not widely adopted. It does NOT belong here if it states a normative recommendation for what should be done, describes a practice's benefits, or asserts a legal/policy fact without framing it as a knowledge or resource gap (e.g., a general description of a regulation's scope).", "route": "corpus", "coherence": "high", "judgedName": "Persistent evidence, guidance, infrastructure, and awareness gaps impede open science practices.", "judgedDefinition": "Members identify specific deficits — missing evidence, unclear costs or processes, fragmented guidance, limited tools/infrastructure, or low awareness — that hold back concrete open-science practices such as FAIR data certification, data sharing, reproducibility interventions, and data reuse. A position belongs here if it names what is lacking (research, evidence, clarity, skills, infrastructure, guidance, or tools) and links that gap to why a practice is underdeveloped or not widely adopted. It does NOT belong here if it states a normative recommendation for what should be done, describes a practice's benefits, or asserts a legal/policy fact without framing it as a knowledge or resource gap (e.g., a general description of a regulation's scope).", "judgedDefinitionVersion": "topdown-ext-v2", "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1373/c605", "osft-doc-0050/c136", "osft-doc-0150/c128", "osft-doc-0441/c88", "osft-doc-0441/c3", "osft-doc-0150/c125", "osft-doc-0050/c135", "osft-doc-0050/c137", "osft-doc-0050/c152", "osft-doc-0050/c200", "osft-doc-0050/c43", "osft-doc-0050/c44", "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-1373/c254", "osft-doc-1373/c289", "osft-doc-1373/c526", "osft-doc-1373/c558", "osft-doc-1373/c595", "osft-doc-1373/c603", "osft-doc-1373/c604", "osft-doc-1373/c609", "osft-doc-1373/c610", "osft-doc-1373/c611", "osft-doc-1373/c613", "osft-doc-1373/c614", "osft-doc-1459/c636", "osft-doc-1507/c140", "osft-doc-1507/c16", "osft-doc-1507/c36", "osft-doc-1507/c38", "osft-doc-1507/c40", "osft-doc-1686/c163", "osft-doc-1507/c37", "osft-doc-1507/c39" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 39, "claims": 83, "documents": 9 } }, { "id": "C17-advancing-open-science-is-a", "kind": "convergence", "name": "Advancing open science is a collective, community-driven effort needing broad participation.", "definition": "Members claim that openness in scholarship is promoted and advanced through a community or movement of people sharing common interests and goals, and that this community should collaborate across related groups (open science, open source, FAIR, hardware) and support new entrants and approaches. Several members define what counts as a \"community\" or \"movement\" for this purpose. The cluster also includes claims that collective participation (more adopters, small collective time commitments, visible individual contributions) accelerates the spread of openness's benefits. It would NOT include positions about specific policies, funding mechanisms, licensing rules, or infrastructure requirements for open science — only claims about the social, collaborative, or movement-like nature of advancing openness belong here.", "route": "corpus", "coherence": "medium", "judgedName": "Advancing open science is a collective, community-driven effort needing broad participation.", "judgedDefinition": "Members claim that openness in scholarship is promoted and advanced through a community or movement of people sharing common interests and goals, and that this community should collaborate across related groups (open science, open source, FAIR, hardware) and support new entrants and approaches. Several members define what counts as a \"community\" or \"movement\" for this purpose. The cluster also includes claims that collective participation (more adopters, small collective time commitments, visible individual contributions) accelerates the spread of openness's benefits. It would NOT include positions about specific policies, funding mechanisms, licensing rules, or infrastructure requirements for open science — only claims about the social, collaborative, or movement-like nature of advancing openness belong here.", "judgedDefinitionVersion": "topdown-ext-v2", "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1646/c17", "osft-doc-0068/c28", "open-science-source-37-c1/c195", "osft-doc-1373/c208", "osft-doc-1373/c226", "osft-doc-1373/c32", "osft-doc-1373/c437", "osft-doc-1373/c456", "osft-doc-1459/c244", "osft-doc-1673/c277", "open-science-source-37-c1/c209", "osft-doc-1459/c487", "open-science-source-37-c1/c192", "open-science-source-45/c162", "open-science-source-54-c2/c134", "open-science-source-54-c2/c40", "osft-doc-0441/c173", "osft-doc-0441/c224", "osft-doc-0504/c14", "osft-doc-0777/c27", "osft-doc-0932/c7", "osft-doc-1327/c208" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 22, "claims": 55, "documents": 22 } }, { "id": "C18-open-scholarship-has-grown-into", "kind": "convergence", "name": "Open scholarship has grown into a broad, global network of initiatives, institutions, and standards", "definition": "Members describe the scale and global reach of the open scholarship/open science movement: its expansion from small local efforts into a worldwide network of universities, institutes, governments, funders, and advocates; the existence of hundreds or thousands of initiatives, organisations, and infrastructures (open access, open education, training networks); and the emergence of international standard-setting instruments such as the UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science. A position belongs here if it reports on the movement's size, diversity, geographic spread, institutional recognition, or the existence of coordinating frameworks/infrastructure. It does NOT belong here if it argues for specific normative requirements of open science practice (e.g., funding models, licensing rules) rather than describing the movement's growth, reach, or supporting infrastructure.", "route": "corpus", "coherence": "medium", "judgedName": "Open scholarship has grown into a broad, global network of initiatives, institutions, and standards", "judgedDefinition": "Members describe the scale and global reach of the open scholarship/open science movement: its expansion from small local efforts into a worldwide network of universities, institutes, governments, funders, and advocates; the existence of hundreds or thousands of initiatives, organisations, and infrastructures (open access, open education, training networks); and the emergence of international standard-setting instruments such as the UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science. A position belongs here if it reports on the movement's size, diversity, geographic spread, institutional recognition, or the existence of coordinating frameworks/infrastructure. It does NOT belong here if it argues for specific normative requirements of open science practice (e.g., funding models, licensing rules) rather than describing the movement's growth, reach, or supporting infrastructure.", "judgedDefinitionVersion": "topdown-ext-v2", "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1373/c228", "osft-doc-1373/c218", "osft-doc-1373/c262", "osft-doc-1373/c484", "osft-doc-1373/c505", "osft-doc-1373/c580", "osft-doc-1373/c587", "osft-doc-1459/c291", "osft-doc-1646/c14", "osft-doc-1373/c485", "osft-doc-0002/c1", "osft-doc-0268/c15", "osft-doc-0975/c30", "osft-doc-1253/c58", "osft-doc-1327/c302", "osft-doc-1373/c482", "osft-doc-1373/c483", "osft-doc-1459/c240", "osft-doc-1459/c491", "osft-doc-1507/c17" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 20, "claims": 49, "documents": 17 } }, { "id": "C19-metrics-and-indicators-for-research", "kind": "convergence", "name": "Metrics and indicators for research evaluation must be transparently designed and responsibly governed.", "definition": "Members converge on the claim that any metric or indicator used to evaluate research (such as reproducibility or impact) must be carefully designed, tested, and governed before and during use. This includes being transparent about the underlying data, methods, and limitations; explicitly defining and combating inappropriate manipulation; basing metrics on accurate, well-scoped data; and updating and interpreting indicators in context as their effects become known. It excludes positions that debate whether particular metrics should exist at all, argue for or against specific evaluation systems (e.g., journal impact factor, article-level metrics), or address open-access/publishing policy more broadly rather than the governance of metrics themselves.", "route": "corpus", "coherence": "high", "judgedName": "Metrics and indicators for research evaluation must be transparently designed and responsibly governed.", "judgedDefinition": "Members converge on the claim that any metric or indicator used to evaluate research (such as reproducibility or impact) must be carefully designed, tested, and governed before and during use. This includes being transparent about the underlying data, methods, and limitations; explicitly defining and combating inappropriate manipulation; basing metrics on accurate, well-scoped data; and updating and interpreting indicators in context as their effects become known. It excludes positions that debate whether particular metrics should exist at all, argue for or against specific evaluation systems (e.g., journal impact factor, article-level metrics), or address open-access/publishing policy more broadly rather than the governance of metrics themselves.", "judgedDefinitionVersion": "topdown-ext-v2", "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0108/c43", "osft-doc-1283/c50", "osft-doc-0150/c53", "osft-doc-1373/c418", "osft-doc-1373/c429", "osft-doc-1373/c431", "osft-doc-0050/c60", "osft-doc-0142/c90", "osft-doc-0050/c76", "osft-doc-0108/c46", "osft-doc-0108/c47", "osft-doc-0108/c9", "osft-doc-0142/c101", "osft-doc-0142/c119", "osft-doc-0142/c1267", "osft-doc-0142/c607" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 16, "claims": 44, "documents": 12 } }, { "id": "C20-research-outputs-and-publishing-take", "kind": "convergence", "name": "Research outputs and publishing take many forms beyond the traditional journal article", "definition": "Members enumerate what counts as a \"research output\" (articles, data, reagents, software, intellectual property, trained scientists) and what counts as \"publishing\" (formal peer-reviewed articles and books, non-peer-reviewed reports, preprints, and creative works like film or sculpture that communicate research results). A position belongs here if it defines or lists the kinds of things research produces or the kinds of acts/media that constitute making those things available for use and critique. It would NOT belong if it instead argues about who may access outputs, who bears costs, licensing terms, or peer-review quality standards — those are downstream of, not part of, this scoping/definitional work.", "route": "corpus", "coherence": "high", "judgedName": "Research outputs and publishing take many forms beyond the traditional journal article", "judgedDefinition": "Members enumerate what counts as a \"research output\" (articles, data, reagents, software, intellectual property, trained scientists) and what counts as \"publishing\" (formal peer-reviewed articles and books, non-peer-reviewed reports, preprints, and creative works like film or sculpture that communicate research results). A position belongs here if it defines or lists the kinds of things research produces or the kinds of acts/media that constitute making those things available for use and critique. It would NOT belong if it instead argues about who may access outputs, who bears costs, licensing terms, or peer-review quality standards — those are downstream of, not part of, this scoping/definitional work.", "judgedDefinitionVersion": "topdown-ext-v2", "starIds": [ "open-science-source-34/c29", "osft-doc-0108/c2", "osft-doc-0108/c3", "osft-doc-1646/c62", "osft-doc-1646/c64", "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-0296/c2", "osft-doc-1459/c357", "open-science-source-05/c78", "open-science-source-05/c79", "open-science-source-05/c80", "open-science-source-05/c82", "open-science-source-05/c83", "open-science-source-05/c84", "open-science-source-28/c1", "osft-doc-0084/c17", "osft-doc-0951/c6", "osft-doc-0951/c8" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 24, "claims": 77, "documents": 18 } }, { "id": "C21-science-its-methods-and-its", "kind": "convergence", "name": "Science, its methods, and its enabling technologies must advance more urgently.", "definition": "Members call for urgent acceleration of progress in science broadly: faster generation of science solutions, quicker innovation cycles, speedier technology deployment, and more rapid development of new, better ways of doing open science. They also call for more research effort — into the science of science policy, into interdisciplinary AI-for-Science methods, and into evidence on how AI is used in research — as a means to that acceleration. The unifying claim is a demand for speed and increased effort in advancing scientific practice and its supporting tools, not any specific policy on access, funding, or governance. A position would NOT belong here if it specified a concrete mechanism, incentive, or rule (e.g., mandating data sharing, funding models, credit systems) rather than simply urging faster or more research/development activity.", "route": "corpus", "coherence": "medium", "judgedName": "Science, its methods, and its enabling technologies must advance more urgently.", "judgedDefinition": "Members call for urgent acceleration of progress in science broadly: faster generation of science solutions, quicker innovation cycles, speedier technology deployment, and more rapid development of new, better ways of doing open science. They also call for more research effort — into the science of science policy, into interdisciplinary AI-for-Science methods, and into evidence on how AI is used in research — as a means to that acceleration. The unifying claim is a demand for speed and increased effort in advancing scientific practice and its supporting tools, not any specific policy on access, funding, or governance. A position would NOT belong here if it specified a concrete mechanism, incentive, or rule (e.g., mandating data sharing, funding models, credit systems) rather than simply urging faster or more research/development activity.", "judgedDefinitionVersion": "topdown-ext-v2", "starIds": [ "open-science-source-41/c208", "open-science-source-18/c486", "osft-doc-0114/c6", "osft-doc-0142/c184", "osft-doc-0825/c34", "osft-doc-0825/c35", "osft-doc-1327/c574" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 7, "claims": 15, "documents": 11 } }, { "id": "C22-peer-review-is-biased-opaque", "kind": "convergence", "name": "Peer review is biased, opaque, inconsistent, and strained by rising capacity demands.", "definition": "Members claim that peer review — the process by which academic work is judged by other researchers — suffers from systemic flaws: it can be biased, lacks transparency, produces inconsistent judgements between reviewers, and does not reliably assess broad notions of research quality. Several members add that these problems are worsening because the volume of submissions is outpacing reviewer capacity, raising the risk that published outputs are unreliable, and that anonymous reviewers can abuse their position to block competing work. A new position belongs here if it identifies a specific shortcoming, failure mode, or strain in the peer-review process itself; it would NOT belong if it proposes a solution or alternative to peer review, or if it discusses evaluation metrics or systems unrelated to reviewer judgement.", "route": "corpus", "coherence": "high", "judgedName": "Peer review is biased, opaque, inconsistent, and strained by rising capacity demands.", "judgedDefinition": "Members claim that peer review — the process by which academic work is judged by other researchers — suffers from systemic flaws: it can be biased, lacks transparency, produces inconsistent judgements between reviewers, and does not reliably assess broad notions of research quality. Several members add that these problems are worsening because the volume of submissions is outpacing reviewer capacity, raising the risk that published outputs are unreliable, and that anonymous reviewers can abuse their position to block competing work. A new position belongs here if it identifies a specific shortcoming, failure mode, or strain in the peer-review process itself; it would NOT belong if it proposes a solution or alternative to peer review, or if it discusses evaluation metrics or systems unrelated to reviewer judgement.", "judgedDefinitionVersion": "topdown-ext-v2", "starIds": [ "open-science-source-04/c40", "open-science-source-45/c130", "open-science-source-04/c41", "osft-doc-0142/c1203", "open-science-source-18/c132", "open-science-source-06/c291", "open-science-source-18/c345", "open-science-source-18/c334", "open-science-source-18/c347", "open-science-source-18/c420", "open-science-source-18/c437", "open-science-source-18/c682", "open-science-source-36/c197" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 13, "claims": 35, "documents": 11 } }, { "id": "C23-coordinated-policy-and-shared-principles", "kind": "convergence", "name": "Coordinated policy and shared principles across stakeholders are needed to drive real change", "definition": "These positions claim that meaningful, lasting change in a domain requires many stakeholders to coordinate — adopting similar policies, agreeing on core principles or values, and aligning on shared goals early in any partnership or discussion. Policy development itself is treated as a key mechanism of cultural change, and finding common ground is seen as the necessary starting point for productive collaboration. A position belongs here if it argues that alignment, coordination, or shared foundational commitments among multiple actors is a precondition for progress. It does NOT belong here if it describes a specific substantive policy content, a particular domain's technical requirements, or a one-off tactical endorsement unrelated to the general logic of coordinated, principle-based change.", "route": "corpus", "coherence": "medium", "judgedName": "Coordinated policy and shared principles across stakeholders are needed to drive real change", "judgedDefinition": "These positions claim that meaningful, lasting change in a domain requires many stakeholders to coordinate — adopting similar policies, agreeing on core principles or values, and aligning on shared goals early in any partnership or discussion. Policy development itself is treated as a key mechanism of cultural change, and finding common ground is seen as the necessary starting point for productive collaboration. A position belongs here if it argues that alignment, coordination, or shared foundational commitments among multiple actors is a precondition for progress. It does NOT belong here if it describes a specific substantive policy content, a particular domain's technical requirements, or a one-off tactical endorsement unrelated to the general logic of coordinated, principle-based change.", "judgedDefinitionVersion": "topdown-ext-v2", "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1673/c165", "open-science-source-15-c2/c21", "osft-doc-0645/c116", "osft-doc-0050/c28", "open-science-source-38/c43", "open-science-source-41/c235", "open-science-source-54-c2/c68", "osft-doc-0963/c45", "osft-doc-1373/c520", "osft-doc-1373/c556" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 10, "claims": 28, "documents": 18 } }, { "id": "C24-key-concepts-like-quality-ethics", "kind": "convergence", "name": "Key concepts like quality, ethics, impact, and infrastructure resist easy definition or solutions", "definition": "Members assert that core concepts central to open science — quality, ethical analysis, impact, and infrastructure — are inherently hard to define, measure, or resolve with precision. They share a meta-level acknowledgment that simple or easy answers to these challenges are not necessarily the right ones. A new position belongs here if it expresses this kind of epistemic humility about the difficulty of defining, measuring, or solving a foundational concept or problem, rather than proposing a specific definition, metric, or solution itself.", "route": "corpus", "coherence": "high", "judgedName": "Key concepts like quality, ethics, impact, and infrastructure resist easy definition or solutions", "judgedDefinition": "Members assert that core concepts central to open science — quality, ethical analysis, impact, and infrastructure — are inherently hard to define, measure, or resolve with precision. They share a meta-level acknowledgment that simple or easy answers to these challenges are not necessarily the right ones. A new position belongs here if it expresses this kind of epistemic humility about the difficulty of defining, measuring, or solving a foundational concept or problem, rather than proposing a specific definition, metric, or solution itself.", "judgedDefinitionVersion": "topdown-ext-v2", "starIds": [ "open-science-source-45/c214", "open-science-source-55/c30", "osft-doc-0296/c5", "open-science-source-05/c89", "osft-doc-1327/c562" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 5, "claims": 13, "documents": 9 } }, { "id": "C25-scientific-recognition-and-funding-depend", "kind": "convergence", "name": "Scientific recognition and funding depend on status and prestige, not research quality, entrenching inequality.", "definition": "Members claim that a researcher's recognition, funding, and career success are driven by status markers—seniority, institutional reputation, location, impact factors, and prominent co-authors—rather than by the quality of their work. This creates a self-reinforcing 'closed system' or cumulative-advantage dynamic in which already-prominent scientists and their collaborators keep gaining disproportionate visibility and funding, deepening inequality in whose ideas shape future research. One member also describes an alternative model tying funding to collective rather than individual 'superstar' success. Positions belong here if they describe how prestige-based evaluation mechanisms distribute scientific credit or resources unequally; positions about the technical or ethical merits of open-access publishing itself, without reference to status-driven recognition or funding, would not belong.", "route": "corpus", "coherence": "high", "judgedName": "Scientific recognition and funding depend on status and prestige, not research quality, entrenching inequality.", "judgedDefinition": "Members claim that a researcher's recognition, funding, and career success are driven by status markers—seniority, institutional reputation, location, impact factors, and prominent co-authors—rather than by the quality of their work. This creates a self-reinforcing 'closed system' or cumulative-advantage dynamic in which already-prominent scientists and their collaborators keep gaining disproportionate visibility and funding, deepening inequality in whose ideas shape future research. One member also describes an alternative model tying funding to collective rather than individual 'superstar' success. Positions belong here if they describe how prestige-based evaluation mechanisms distribute scientific credit or resources unequally; positions about the technical or ethical merits of open-access publishing itself, without reference to status-driven recognition or funding, would not belong.", "judgedDefinitionVersion": "topdown-ext-v2", "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1673/c65", "osft-doc-1327/c702", "osft-doc-1373/c529", "open-science-source-13/c4", "open-science-source-18/c632", "osft-doc-0441/c104", "osft-doc-0441/c105", "osft-doc-0441/c106", "osft-doc-0441/c107" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 9, "claims": 23, "documents": 12 } }, { "id": "C26-federal-departments-and-agencies-should", "kind": "convergence", "name": "Federal departments and agencies should adopt time-bound open science action plans with defined milestones.", "definition": "Members call on federal departments and agencies to create open science action plans by specific deadlines, covering elements such as legacy data and publication sharing, open access to science articles, and designation of a Chief Scientific Data Officer. The recurring actors are federal departments/agencies and deputy heads; the recurring mechanism is a dated, published action plan with concrete deliverables. Positions about general organizational capacity-building (e.g., equity assessment skills) or generic staff incentive structures that are not tied to an open science action plan or its deadlines do not belong here.", "route": "corpus", "coherence": "medium", "judgedName": "Federal departments and agencies should adopt time-bound open science action plans with defined milestones.", "judgedDefinition": "Members call on federal departments and agencies to create open science action plans by specific deadlines, covering elements such as legacy data and publication sharing, open access to science articles, and designation of a Chief Scientific Data Officer. The recurring actors are federal departments/agencies and deputy heads; the recurring mechanism is a dated, published action plan with concrete deliverables. Positions about general organizational capacity-building (e.g., equity assessment skills) or generic staff incentive structures that are not tied to an open science action plan or its deadlines do not belong here.", "judgedDefinitionVersion": "topdown-ext-v2", "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0951/c18", "osft-doc-1646/c33", "osft-doc-1646/c40", "osft-doc-0951/c17", "osft-doc-0951/c27", "osft-doc-1646/c30", "osft-doc-1737/c28", "osft-doc-1737/c33", "osft-doc-1737/c48" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 9, "claims": 23, "documents": 5 } }, { "id": "C27-the-journal-impact-factor-has", "kind": "convergence", "name": "The Journal Impact Factor has statistical properties that undermine its use as a quality measure.", "definition": "Members define the Journal Impact Factor and bibliometrics generally, then describe specific statistical or methodological properties that limit their validity: citation distributions within a journal are highly skewed, article types and fields differ, citation counts do not distinguish positive from negative or controversial citation, and controversial or erroneous work can attract high citation counts. The unifying claim is that citation-based metrics like the JIF, despite being widely used, have inherent statistical/semantic flaws that make raw citation counts a poor proxy for quality or merit. This does NOT include positions about policy responses to these flaws (e.g., calls to abandon JIF in hiring/funding decisions), nor about alternative metrics or qualitative assessment methods, nor about the social or institutional effects of metric-driven evaluation culture — those are adjacent but distinct claims.", "route": "corpus", "coherence": "medium", "judgedName": "The Journal Impact Factor has statistical properties that undermine its use as a quality measure.", "judgedDefinition": "Members define the Journal Impact Factor and bibliometrics generally, then describe specific statistical or methodological properties that limit their validity: citation distributions within a journal are highly skewed, article types and fields differ, citation counts do not distinguish positive from negative or controversial citation, and controversial or erroneous work can attract high citation counts. The unifying claim is that citation-based metrics like the JIF, despite being widely used, have inherent statistical/semantic flaws that make raw citation counts a poor proxy for quality or merit. This does NOT include positions about policy responses to these flaws (e.g., calls to abandon JIF in hiring/funding decisions), nor about alternative metrics or qualitative assessment methods, nor about the social or institutional effects of metric-driven evaluation culture — those are adjacent but distinct claims.", "judgedDefinitionVersion": "topdown-ext-v2", "starIds": [ "open-science-source-36/c327", "osft-doc-0142/c459", "osft-doc-0108/c14", "osft-doc-0142/c211", "osft-doc-0142/c212" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 5, "claims": 14, "documents": 8 } }, { "id": "C28-collaboration-across-disciplines-sectors-and", "kind": "convergence", "name": "Collaboration across disciplines, sectors, and communities should be actively fostered and recognized", "definition": "Members call for building and sustaining connections between different disciplines, sectors, and non-academic actors: promoting interdisciplinary and public collaboration, enabling co-production of knowledge with multiple actors, formally recognizing non-scientific contributions, and extending community cohesion and shared understanding (e.g. via boundary objects, common evidence bases) across intersecting groups. It belongs here if it addresses fostering, structuring, or recognizing cross-boundary collaboration or cohesion among diverse communities/actors. It does NOT belong here if it concerns open-access mechanics, funding/licensing policy, or data/infrastructure standards without reference to cross-community collaboration or engagement.", "route": "corpus", "coherence": "medium", "judgedName": "Collaboration across disciplines, sectors, and communities should be actively fostered and recognized", "judgedDefinition": "Members call for building and sustaining connections between different disciplines, sectors, and non-academic actors: promoting interdisciplinary and public collaboration, enabling co-production of knowledge with multiple actors, formally recognizing non-scientific contributions, and extending community cohesion and shared understanding (e.g. via boundary objects, common evidence bases) across intersecting groups. It belongs here if it addresses fostering, structuring, or recognizing cross-boundary collaboration or cohesion among diverse communities/actors. It does NOT belong here if it concerns open-access mechanics, funding/licensing policy, or data/infrastructure standards without reference to cross-community collaboration or engagement.", "judgedDefinitionVersion": "topdown-ext-v2", "starIds": [ "open-science-source-18/c521", "open-science-source-45/c165", "open-science-source-45/c218", "osft-doc-1459/c219", "open-science-source-03/c139", "open-science-source-03/c164", "open-science-source-03/c165", "open-science-source-03/c46", "osft-doc-1327/c238", "osft-doc-1373/c247", "osft-doc-1373/c392", "osft-doc-1373/c395", "osft-doc-1373/c400", "osft-doc-1373/c445" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 14, "claims": 35, "documents": 13 } }, { "id": "C29-key-parts-of-the-research", "kind": "convergence", "name": "Key parts of the research system stay closed or opaque despite open science ideals.", "definition": "Members document specific cases where research infrastructure that should be transparent is instead closed: AI conference publishing relies on closed data/models, Journal Impact Factor calculations are not open, federally funded research articles are not widely accessible, and open-science monitoring itself uses closed data. The shared claim is an empirical observation of hypocrisy or gap — that mechanisms central to evaluating, publishing, or incentivizing research remain undisclosed or restricted even as open science is promoted. This excludes normative arguments for why openness matters, proposals for new open-access mandates or funding models, and general open-access advocacy that does not point to a specific closed practice or dataset.", "route": "corpus", "coherence": "medium", "judgedName": "Key parts of the research system stay closed or opaque despite open science ideals.", "judgedDefinition": "Members document specific cases where research infrastructure that should be transparent is instead closed: AI conference publishing relies on closed data/models, Journal Impact Factor calculations are not open, federally funded research articles are not widely accessible, and open-science monitoring itself uses closed data. The shared claim is an empirical observation of hypocrisy or gap — that mechanisms central to evaluating, publishing, or incentivizing research remain undisclosed or restricted even as open science is promoted. This excludes normative arguments for why openness matters, proposals for new open-access mandates or funding models, and general open-access advocacy that does not point to a specific closed practice or dataset.", "judgedDefinitionVersion": "topdown-ext-v2", "starIds": [ "open-science-source-42/c545", "open-science-source-19/c2", "open-science-source-05/c10", "open-science-source-05/c8", "osft-doc-0108/c16" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 5, "claims": 13, "documents": 9 } }, { "id": "C30-replication-is-a-valuable-growing", "kind": "convergence", "name": "Replication is a valuable, growing activity that funders should actively support.", "definition": "Members hold that replication and reproducibility are central to scientific inquiry, strengthening confidence in findings, guiding methods and teaching, and informing new research. They also converge on the claim that replication efforts are increasing and that funders should provide dedicated or top-up funding, incentives, and sustained investment to mainstream replication as a routine, expected part of funded research. A position belongs here if it asserts either the epistemic value of replication/reproducibility or a call for funder/institutional support to promote it. It would not belong if it concerned the results of a specific replication study, technical methods for conducting replications, or open-access/data-sharing policies unrelated to replication funding.", "route": "corpus", "coherence": "high", "judgedName": "Replication is a valuable, growing activity that funders should actively support.", "judgedDefinition": "Members hold that replication and reproducibility are central to scientific inquiry, strengthening confidence in findings, guiding methods and teaching, and informing new research. They also converge on the claim that replication efforts are increasing and that funders should provide dedicated or top-up funding, incentives, and sustained investment to mainstream replication as a routine, expected part of funded research. A position belongs here if it asserts either the epistemic value of replication/reproducibility or a call for funder/institutional support to promote it. It would not belong if it concerned the results of a specific replication study, technical methods for conducting replications, or open-access/data-sharing policies unrelated to replication funding.", "judgedDefinitionVersion": "topdown-ext-v2", "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0050/c83", "osft-doc-0050/c11", "open-science-source-50/c30", "osft-doc-0050/c141", "osft-doc-0050/c19", "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-0441/c257", "osft-doc-0441/c258", "osft-doc-0441/c259", "osft-doc-0441/c260" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 15, "claims": 37, "documents": 8 } }, { "id": "C31-networked-technologies-and-collaboration-make", "kind": "convergence", "name": "Networked technologies and collaboration make knowledge creation more efficient and societies more connected.", "definition": "Members claim that networked digital technologies, online tools/platforms, and collaborative or collective-intelligence practices improve the efficiency, scope, and speed of knowledge creation, and that this growing interconnectedness fosters knowledge societies and accelerates human progress. Recurring objects include ICT infrastructure, online collaboration tools, external/collective knowledge sources, and shared research infrastructure supporting collective science on complex problems. A new position belongs here if it asserts that networked or collaborative mechanisms causally enhance how knowledge is produced or societal progress is achieved. It would NOT belong if it instead concerns access rights, funding models, or infrastructure uses unrelated to knowledge-production efficiency, such as decision-making processes or non-academic networking/marketing functions.", "route": "corpus", "coherence": "medium", "judgedName": "Networked technologies and collaboration make knowledge creation more efficient and societies more connected.", "judgedDefinition": "Members claim that networked digital technologies, online tools/platforms, and collaborative or collective-intelligence practices improve the efficiency, scope, and speed of knowledge creation, and that this growing interconnectedness fosters knowledge societies and accelerates human progress. Recurring objects include ICT infrastructure, online collaboration tools, external/collective knowledge sources, and shared research infrastructure supporting collective science on complex problems. A new position belongs here if it asserts that networked or collaborative mechanisms causally enhance how knowledge is produced or societal progress is achieved. It would NOT belong if it instead concerns access rights, funding models, or infrastructure uses unrelated to knowledge-production efficiency, such as decision-making processes or non-academic networking/marketing functions.", "judgedDefinitionVersion": "topdown-ext-v2", "starIds": [ "open-science-source-27/c1", "osft-doc-1373/c338", "osft-doc-1373/c336", "osft-doc-1373/c341", "osft-doc-1373/c342", "open-science-source-03/c37", "open-science-source-03/c6", "open-science-source-03/c7", "osft-doc-1373/c356" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 9, "claims": 21, "documents": 8 } }, { "id": "C32-funders-should-replace-short-term", "kind": "convergence", "name": "Funders should replace short-term project grants with sustained, strategic structural funding", "definition": "Members hold that research funding organisations should move away from traditional short-term, project-based grant mechanisms toward longer-term, structural investment, often allocated at the institutional rather than individual researcher or team level. This includes calls for funders to take on an active leadership and direction-setting role, and for institutions to develop stronger strategic profiles to receive such funding. A new position belongs here if it concerns the design or reform of funding mechanisms or the funder's role in setting research direction; it would NOT belong if it instead concerns how research outputs are evaluated, disseminated, or made open (e.g., open access policy, peer review, or data sharing), even if funding is mentioned only in passing as a lever for those goals.", "route": "corpus", "coherence": "medium", "judgedName": "Funders should replace short-term project grants with sustained, strategic structural funding", "judgedDefinition": "Members hold that research funding organisations should move away from traditional short-term, project-based grant mechanisms toward longer-term, structural investment, often allocated at the institutional rather than individual researcher or team level. This includes calls for funders to take on an active leadership and direction-setting role, and for institutions to develop stronger strategic profiles to receive such funding. A new position belongs here if it concerns the design or reform of funding mechanisms or the funder's role in setting research direction; it would NOT belong if it instead concerns how research outputs are evaluated, disseminated, or made open (e.g., open access policy, peer review, or data sharing), even if funding is mentioned only in passing as a lever for those goals.", "judgedDefinitionVersion": "topdown-ext-v2", "starIds": [ "open-science-source-18/c576", "open-science-source-10/c11", "open-science-source-15-c2/c150", "open-science-source-18/c761" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 4, "claims": 11, "documents": 6 } }, { "id": "C33-crossing-planetary-boundaries-will-trigger", "kind": "convergence", "name": "Crossing planetary boundaries will trigger cascading, catastrophic crises demanding urgent action.", "definition": "Members claim that human-caused environmental change — climate breakdown and the transgression of planetary boundaries/tipping points — is producing \"new planetary operating conditions\" that will cascade into severe social and geopolitical harms: ecosystem collapse, food-system and supply-chain breakdown, mass migration, armed conflict, geopolitical insecurity, and new pandemics. They further assert that this constitutes an existential threat comparable to or greater than crises like COVID-19, and that it demands immediate, far-reaching action. A position belongs here if it describes the environmental crisis itself (its scientific state, e.g. tipping points/planetary boundaries) or its downstream cascading consequences for human society, or calls urgently for a response to that crisis. It would NOT belong if it instead specifies particular policy mechanisms, institutional commitments, or open-science/data-sharing responses to the crisis rather than describing the crisis or its consequences and the general need for urgency.", "route": "corpus", "coherence": "high", "judgedName": "Crossing planetary boundaries will trigger cascading, catastrophic crises demanding urgent action.", "judgedDefinition": "Members claim that human-caused environmental change — climate breakdown and the transgression of planetary boundaries/tipping points — is producing \"new planetary operating conditions\" that will cascade into severe social and geopolitical harms: ecosystem collapse, food-system and supply-chain breakdown, mass migration, armed conflict, geopolitical insecurity, and new pandemics. They further assert that this constitutes an existential threat comparable to or greater than crises like COVID-19, and that it demands immediate, far-reaching action. A position belongs here if it describes the environmental crisis itself (its scientific state, e.g. tipping points/planetary boundaries) or its downstream cascading consequences for human society, or calls urgently for a response to that crisis. It would NOT belong if it instead specifies particular policy mechanisms, institutional commitments, or open-science/data-sharing responses to the crisis rather than describing the crisis or its consequences and the general need for urgency.", "judgedDefinitionVersion": "topdown-ext-v2", "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0114/c2", "osft-doc-0114/c3", "osft-doc-0114/c4", "osft-doc-0825/c10", "osft-doc-0825/c11", "osft-doc-0825/c12", "osft-doc-0825/c4", "osft-doc-0825/c5", "osft-doc-0825/c6", "osft-doc-0825/c7", "osft-doc-0825/c8", "osft-doc-0825/c9" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 12, "claims": 24, "documents": 4 } }, { "id": "C34-science-should-be-defined-broadly", "kind": "convergence", "name": "Science should be defined broadly to cover natural, biomedical, social, engineering and math fields", "definition": "Members assert that the term \"science,\" as used in the Roadmap for Open Science, is deliberately broad and encompasses fundamental and applied natural, physical, biomedical, and social science, plus engineering and mathematics. A position belongs here if it specifies which fields or domains fall under the Roadmap's working definition of science, or offers a general characterization of what counts as science (e.g., pursuit of knowledge via the scientific method). It does not belong if it discusses open-science practices, policies, or benefits rather than the scope of the word \"science\" itself, or if it addresses unrelated terminology outside this definitional exercise.", "route": "corpus", "coherence": "high", "judgedName": "Science should be defined broadly to cover natural, biomedical, social, engineering and math fields", "judgedDefinition": "Members assert that the term \"science,\" as used in the Roadmap for Open Science, is deliberately broad and encompasses fundamental and applied natural, physical, biomedical, and social science, plus engineering and mathematics. A position belongs here if it specifies which fields or domains fall under the Roadmap's working definition of science, or offers a general characterization of what counts as science (e.g., pursuit of knowledge via the scientific method). It does not belong if it discusses open-science practices, policies, or benefits rather than the scope of the word \"science\" itself, or if it addresses unrelated terminology outside this definitional exercise.", "judgedDefinitionVersion": "topdown-ext-v2", "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0105/c149", "open-science-source-03/c56", "osft-doc-0951/c36", "osft-doc-0951/c37", "osft-doc-0951/c38", "osft-doc-0951/c39", "osft-doc-1646/c56", "osft-doc-1771/c61", "osft-doc-1737/c69" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 9, "claims": 27, "documents": 8 } }, { "id": "C35-reproducibility-and-research-indicators-risk", "kind": "convergence", "name": "Reproducibility and research indicators risk gaming, oversimplification, and other unintended harms.", "definition": "Members claim that metrics or indicators designed to measure reproducibility or research quality carry systemic risks: they can be gamed or manipulated, become targets that distort behaviour (Goodhart's law), oversimplify complex research practices, encourage superficial box-ticking compliance, and disadvantage disciplines whose norms differ from the metric's assumptions. The recurring objects are reproducibility indicators, alternative metrics (altmetrics), and other emergent research-evaluation measures. A position would NOT belong here if it merely describes what a metric measures, proposes a specific replacement indicator, or discusses incentives/rewards unrelated to the risk of distortion or gaming.", "route": "corpus", "coherence": "high", "judgedName": "Reproducibility and research indicators risk gaming, oversimplification, and other unintended harms.", "judgedDefinition": "Members claim that metrics or indicators designed to measure reproducibility or research quality carry systemic risks: they can be gamed or manipulated, become targets that distort behaviour (Goodhart's law), oversimplify complex research practices, encourage superficial box-ticking compliance, and disadvantage disciplines whose norms differ from the metric's assumptions. The recurring objects are reproducibility indicators, alternative metrics (altmetrics), and other emergent research-evaluation measures. A position would NOT belong here if it merely describes what a metric measures, proposes a specific replacement indicator, or discusses incentives/rewards unrelated to the risk of distortion or gaming.", "judgedDefinitionVersion": "topdown-ext-v2", "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0142/c1344", "osft-doc-0050/c71", "osft-doc-0050/c72", "osft-doc-0050/c73", "osft-doc-0050/c74", "osft-doc-0142/c1213" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 6, "claims": 14, "documents": 7 } }, { "id": "C37-open-scholarship-policy-is-diverse", "kind": "convergence", "name": "Open scholarship policy is diverse, multi-level, and shaped by both top-down and bottom-up initiatives.", "definition": "Members describe the open scholarship policy landscape as fragmented and multi-layered: governments, funders, research institutes, and educational bodies each develop their own policies, and discussion and evidence about open scholarship occur at levels ranging from individual practice to national policy, across countries and disciplines. Several members further characterize this landscape as arising from a mix of top-down (institutional/governmental) and bottom-up (grassroots/individual) approaches, and point to specific ongoing initiatives (e.g., copyright frameworks, FAIR data policy efforts) that contribute to this evolving ecosystem. A new position belongs here if it describes the structure, scope, actors, or multi-level/multi-approach nature of the open scholarship policy landscape itself; it would NOT belong if it instead argues for a specific policy content, mandate, or normative recommendation about what open scholarship practice should be.", "route": "corpus", "coherence": "medium", "judgedName": "Open scholarship policy is diverse, multi-level, and shaped by both top-down and bottom-up initiatives.", "judgedDefinition": "Members describe the open scholarship policy landscape as fragmented and multi-layered: governments, funders, research institutes, and educational bodies each develop their own policies, and discussion and evidence about open scholarship occur at levels ranging from individual practice to national policy, across countries and disciplines. Several members further characterize this landscape as arising from a mix of top-down (institutional/governmental) and bottom-up (grassroots/individual) approaches, and point to specific ongoing initiatives (e.g., copyright frameworks, FAIR data policy efforts) that contribute to this evolving ecosystem. A new position belongs here if it describes the structure, scope, actors, or multi-level/multi-approach nature of the open scholarship policy landscape itself; it would NOT belong if it instead argues for a specific policy content, mandate, or normative recommendation about what open scholarship practice should be.", "judgedDefinitionVersion": "topdown-ext-v2", "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1373/c502", "osft-doc-1327/c436", "osft-doc-1373/c473", "osft-doc-1373/c479", "osft-doc-1373/c503", "osft-doc-0441/c310", "osft-doc-0441/c314", "osft-doc-0441/c74", "osft-doc-1373/c316", "osft-doc-1373/c464", "osft-doc-1373/c478", "osft-doc-1373/c581", "osft-doc-1507/c135" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 13, "claims": 32, "documents": 9 } }, { "id": "C38-agencies-existing-federal-purpose-license", "kind": "convergence", "name": "Agencies' existing federal purpose license already authorizes public access, and it must be disclosed", "definition": "These positions concern the pre-existing \"federal purpose license\" that agencies automatically receive in copyrighted works produced with federal funding, and argue this license already gives agencies (and those they authorize) sufficient legal authority to require broad reuse of scholarly publications without new legislation. They also hold that, because this license is not obvious to readers, its existence and scope must be actively disclosed — via specified template language — whenever a policy-covered work is deposited or distributed. A new position belongs here if it addresses the scope, source, or communication of this specific federal purpose license as the legal basis for public access mandates. It would NOT belong if it instead concerns author-chosen open licenses (e.g., CC-BY), embargo lengths, funding mechanisms for open access, or copyright policy unrelated to the government's own retained-use license.", "route": "corpus", "coherence": "high", "judgedName": "Agencies' existing federal purpose license already authorizes public access, and it must be disclosed", "judgedDefinition": "These positions concern the pre-existing \"federal purpose license\" that agencies automatically receive in copyrighted works produced with federal funding, and argue this license already gives agencies (and those they authorize) sufficient legal authority to require broad reuse of scholarly publications without new legislation. They also hold that, because this license is not obvious to readers, its existence and scope must be actively disclosed — via specified template language — whenever a policy-covered work is deposited or distributed. A new position belongs here if it addresses the scope, source, or communication of this specific federal purpose license as the legal basis for public access mandates. It would NOT belong if it instead concerns author-chosen open licenses (e.g., CC-BY), embargo lengths, funding mechanisms for open access, or copyright policy unrelated to the government's own retained-use license.", "judgedDefinitionVersion": "topdown-ext-v2", "starIds": [ "open-science-source-24-c2/c21", "open-science-source-24-c8/c55", "open-science-source-24-c3/c47", "open-science-source-24-c3/c49", "open-science-source-24-c2/c82", "open-science-source-24-c2/c83" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 6, "claims": 22, "documents": 7 } }, { "id": "C39-competing-teaching-research-and-administrative", "kind": "convergence", "name": "Competing teaching, research, and administrative demands leave researchers too time-constrained to adopt new practices.", "definition": "Members claim that researchers and educators face heavy, competing demands on their time — teaching loads, funding acquisition, administrative tasks, and career-progression pressures tied to research/grant productivity — which crowd out research time and make it hard to integrate new practices such as open scholarship into teaching or pedagogy. The recurring mechanism is scarcity of time and misaligned incentives (career advancement rewards research output over teaching), not lack of willingness or skill. A position would NOT belong here if it concerned funding scarcity, technical/infrastructural barriers, disciplinary norms, or resistance rooted in attitudes or values rather than time and workload constraints.", "route": "corpus", "coherence": "high", "judgedName": "Competing teaching, research, and administrative demands leave researchers too time-constrained to adopt new practices.", "judgedDefinition": "Members claim that researchers and educators face heavy, competing demands on their time — teaching loads, funding acquisition, administrative tasks, and career-progression pressures tied to research/grant productivity — which crowd out research time and make it hard to integrate new practices such as open scholarship into teaching or pedagogy. The recurring mechanism is scarcity of time and misaligned incentives (career advancement rewards research output over teaching), not lack of willingness or skill. A position would NOT belong here if it concerned funding scarcity, technical/infrastructural barriers, disciplinary norms, or resistance rooted in attitudes or values rather than time and workload constraints.", "judgedDefinitionVersion": "topdown-ext-v2", "starIds": [ "open-science-source-45/c112", "osft-doc-0441/c161", "osft-doc-0441/c163", "osft-doc-0441/c170", "osft-doc-1878/c160" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 5, "claims": 13, "documents": 6 } }, { "id": "C40-the-pdb-is-a-centrally", "kind": "convergence", "name": "The PDB is a centrally governed, continuously maintained global archive of macromolecular structure data.", "definition": "Members describe the Protein Data Bank as a single, jointly-governed archive (the wwPDB partnership, with RCSB PDB as Core Archive Keeper) that stores 3D atomic coordinate models of proteins, nucleic acids and their complexes, along with associated experimental metadata. They describe its operational mechanisms — the OneDep deposition/validation/biocuration system, weekly update cycles, and annual validation reports — and its role as a public-good resource serving researchers, educators, and students worldwide. A new position belongs here if it states a fact about the PDB's governance, holdings, technical infrastructure, or stated mission/reach; it would NOT belong if it argued for or against particular data-sharing policies, funding models, or normative obligations unrelated to describing the PDB itself.", "route": "corpus", "coherence": "high", "judgedName": "The PDB is a centrally governed, continuously maintained global archive of macromolecular structure data.", "judgedDefinition": "Members describe the Protein Data Bank as a single, jointly-governed archive (the wwPDB partnership, with RCSB PDB as Core Archive Keeper) that stores 3D atomic coordinate models of proteins, nucleic acids and their complexes, along with associated experimental metadata. They describe its operational mechanisms — the OneDep deposition/validation/biocuration system, weekly update cycles, and annual validation reports — and its role as a public-good resource serving researchers, educators, and students worldwide. A new position belongs here if it states a fact about the PDB's governance, holdings, technical infrastructure, or stated mission/reach; it would NOT belong if it argued for or against particular data-sharing policies, funding models, or normative obligations unrelated to describing the PDB itself.", "judgedDefinitionVersion": "topdown-ext-v2", "starIds": [ "open-science-source-16-c2/c1", "open-science-source-16-c1/c100", "open-science-source-16-c1/c101", "open-science-source-16-c4/c3", "open-science-source-16-c1/c125", "open-science-source-16-c1/c130", "open-science-source-16-c1/c143", "open-science-source-16-c1/c2", "open-science-source-16-c1/c40", "open-science-source-16-c1/c61", "open-science-source-16-c3/c18", "open-science-source-16-c3/c27", "open-science-source-16-c3/c3", "open-science-source-16-c4/c144" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 14, "claims": 32, "documents": 4 } }, { "id": "C41-academic-and-scientific-structures-perpetuate", "kind": "convergence", "name": "Academic and scientific structures perpetuate systemic inequality disadvantaging marginalized and underrepresented groups.", "definition": "Members claim that inequality is built into academic and scientific systems, shaping who gets studied, educated, published, and recognized as a prominent scholar. They point to specific mechanisms — prestige-based funding, science communication norms, teaching and mentoring practices, and models of scientific production — as perpetuating power imbalances, exploitation of privilege, and unequal access to knowledge, with disproportionate harm to early-career researchers and groups marginalized by gender, race, ethnicity, origin, or class. A position belongs here if it asserts that some feature of how academia or science operates causes or reproduces disparities in participation, access, or recognition; positions that merely describe remedies (e.g., specific funding formulas, open-access mandates) without asserting this structural-inequality claim would not belong.", "route": "corpus", "coherence": "high", "judgedName": "Academic and scientific structures perpetuate systemic inequality disadvantaging marginalized and underrepresented groups.", "judgedDefinition": "Members claim that inequality is built into academic and scientific systems, shaping who gets studied, educated, published, and recognized as a prominent scholar. They point to specific mechanisms — prestige-based funding, science communication norms, teaching and mentoring practices, and models of scientific production — as perpetuating power imbalances, exploitation of privilege, and unequal access to knowledge, with disproportionate harm to early-career researchers and groups marginalized by gender, race, ethnicity, origin, or class. A position belongs here if it asserts that some feature of how academia or science operates causes or reproduces disparities in participation, access, or recognition; positions that merely describe remedies (e.g., specific funding formulas, open-access mandates) without asserting this structural-inequality claim would not belong.", "judgedDefinitionVersion": "topdown-ext-v2", "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1673/c168", "osft-doc-0441/c102", "osft-doc-1373/c528", "osft-doc-0441/c101", "osft-doc-0441/c109", "osft-doc-0441/c110", "osft-doc-0441/c111", "osft-doc-0441/c304", "osft-doc-0441/c97", "osft-doc-0441/c99" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 10, "claims": 25, "documents": 7 } }, { "id": "C42-reproducibility-s-relevance-as-a", "kind": "convergence", "name": "Reproducibility's relevance as a quality standard depends on research context, not universal", "definition": "Members claim that reproducibility is not a universal, context-free quality standard but depends on a study's research goals, epistemic tradition, and practical feasibility. They argue that conventional quantitative definitions of reproducibility and replicability are often ill-suited to qualitative, exploratory, or interpretivist research, which may instead rely on concepts like credibility, reflexivity, or plausibility, though well-adapted versions of reproducibility can still be meaningful there. They also note that verifying reproducibility for every result is practically infeasible. This excludes positions that treat reproducibility as a fixed, universally applicable methodological requirement, or that focus on specific reproducibility techniques, tools, or infrastructure rather than on when and whether reproducibility is the right standard to apply.", "route": "corpus", "coherence": "high", "judgedName": "Reproducibility's relevance as a quality standard depends on research context, not universal", "judgedDefinition": "Members claim that reproducibility is not a universal, context-free quality standard but depends on a study's research goals, epistemic tradition, and practical feasibility. They argue that conventional quantitative definitions of reproducibility and replicability are often ill-suited to qualitative, exploratory, or interpretivist research, which may instead rely on concepts like credibility, reflexivity, or plausibility, though well-adapted versions of reproducibility can still be meaningful there. They also note that verifying reproducibility for every result is practically infeasible. This excludes positions that treat reproducibility as a fixed, universally applicable methodological requirement, or that focus on specific reproducibility techniques, tools, or infrastructure rather than on when and whether reproducibility is the right standard to apply.", "judgedDefinitionVersion": "topdown-ext-v2", "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0050/c188", "osft-doc-0150/c204", "open-science-source-04/c89", "osft-doc-0050/c160", "osft-doc-0050/c175", "osft-doc-0050/c161", "osft-doc-0050/c164", "osft-doc-0050/c174" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 8, "claims": 19, "documents": 5 } }, { "id": "C43-national-level-bodies-should-actively", "kind": "convergence", "name": "National-level bodies should actively fund, build, and showcase open scholarship infrastructure and practices.", "definition": "Members call on national (or higher) level actors and bodies to take proactive steps that advance open scholarship: fostering connectivity between systems and communities, funding outreach to under-represented groups, developing new tools and functionalities, following consortia examples like Projekt DEAL, and publicising good practices via national websites or portals. The unifying claim is that national-level institutions bear responsibility for building the infrastructure, funding, and visibility needed to advance open scholarship, rather than leaving this to individual researchers, institutions, or the market. A position would NOT belong here if it addresses actions expected of individual researchers, publishers, or institutions rather than national/higher-level bodies, or if it concerns funding mechanisms unrelated to open scholarship outreach or infrastructure (e.g., general research funding policy).", "route": "corpus", "coherence": "medium", "judgedName": "National-level bodies should actively fund, build, and showcase open scholarship infrastructure and practices.", "judgedDefinition": "Members call on national (or higher) level actors and bodies to take proactive steps that advance open scholarship: fostering connectivity between systems and communities, funding outreach to under-represented groups, developing new tools and functionalities, following consortia examples like Projekt DEAL, and publicising good practices via national websites or portals. The unifying claim is that national-level institutions bear responsibility for building the infrastructure, funding, and visibility needed to advance open scholarship, rather than leaving this to individual researchers, institutions, or the market. A position would NOT belong here if it addresses actions expected of individual researchers, publishers, or institutions rather than national/higher-level bodies, or if it concerns funding mechanisms unrelated to open scholarship outreach or infrastructure (e.g., general research funding policy).", "judgedDefinitionVersion": "topdown-ext-v2", "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1673/c59", "osft-doc-1373/c149", "osft-doc-1373/c187", "osft-doc-1373/c213", "open-science-source-03/c154", "osft-doc-1373/c194", "osft-doc-1459/c144", "osft-doc-1459/c145" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 8, "claims": 23, "documents": 6 } }, { "id": "C44-teaching-should-integrate-open-and", "kind": "convergence", "name": "Teaching should integrate open and reproducible scholarship into how science is taught and mentored", "definition": "Members converge on \"principled teaching and mentoring\": the idea that educators should weave open-scholarship tenets (reproducibility, replication, pre-registration, analytical flexibility, epistemic uncertainty) into subject-matter instruction rather than teaching facts in isolation. This requires educators themselves to be familiar with both the content and the ongoing debates/procedures of their field, and is claimed to build students' curiosity, critical thinking, confidence to question dogma, and a realistic view of science as a continuous, uncertain learning process. It also covers claims about scholars' broader pedagogical role and responsibility to inspire and shape students beyond fact transmission. It excludes positions about open-science infrastructure, policy mandates, publishing/incentive systems, or data-sharing practices that are not framed through the lens of classroom teaching or mentoring.", "route": "corpus", "coherence": "high", "judgedName": "Teaching should integrate open and reproducible scholarship into how science is taught and mentored", "judgedDefinition": "Members converge on \"principled teaching and mentoring\": the idea that educators should weave open-scholarship tenets (reproducibility, replication, pre-registration, analytical flexibility, epistemic uncertainty) into subject-matter instruction rather than teaching facts in isolation. This requires educators themselves to be familiar with both the content and the ongoing debates/procedures of their field, and is claimed to build students' curiosity, critical thinking, confidence to question dogma, and a realistic view of science as a continuous, uncertain learning process. It also covers claims about scholars' broader pedagogical role and responsibility to inspire and shape students beyond fact transmission. It excludes positions about open-science infrastructure, policy mandates, publishing/incentive systems, or data-sharing practices that are not framed through the lens of classroom teaching or mentoring.", "judgedDefinitionVersion": "topdown-ext-v2", "starIds": [ "osft-doc-0680/c21", "osft-doc-0441/c139", "osft-doc-1878/c110", "osft-doc-0441/c127", "osft-doc-0441/c142", "osft-doc-1878/c138", "osft-doc-1878/c65", "osft-doc-0441/c123", "osft-doc-0441/c124", "osft-doc-0441/c125", "osft-doc-0441/c126", "osft-doc-0441/c130", "osft-doc-0441/c135", "osft-doc-0441/c136", "osft-doc-0441/c147", "osft-doc-0441/c149", "osft-doc-0441/c150", "osft-doc-0441/c151", "osft-doc-0441/c152", "osft-doc-0441/c166", "osft-doc-0441/c17", "osft-doc-0441/c181", "osft-doc-0441/c319", "osft-doc-0441/c320", "osft-doc-0441/c322", "osft-doc-0441/c323", "osft-doc-0441/c338", "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/c59", "osft-doc-0441/c60", "osft-doc-0441/c61", "osft-doc-0441/c62", "osft-doc-0441/c63", "osft-doc-0441/c66", "osft-doc-0441/c7", "osft-doc-1878/c181" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 41, "claims": 86, "documents": 4 } }, { "id": "C45-open-scholarship-terminology-is-complex", "kind": "convergence", "name": "Open Scholarship terminology is complex and prone to confusion or misuse", "definition": "Members claim that Open Scholarship involves its own technical vocabulary that is inherently hard to grasp, and that this vocabulary is frequently misused, conflated with narrower terms like Open Access, or applied ('open washing') to products and practices that are not genuinely open, which dilutes its intended meaning. A position belongs here if it concerns the difficulty, ambiguity, or misapplication of Open Scholarship-related terms or concepts themselves. It would NOT belong if it instead concerns the substantive practices of openness (e.g., data sharing, licensing rules, funder mandates) without reference to terminological confusion or misuse.", "route": "corpus", "coherence": "high", "judgedName": "Open Scholarship terminology is complex and prone to confusion or misuse", "judgedDefinition": "Members claim that Open Scholarship involves its own technical vocabulary that is inherently hard to grasp, and that this vocabulary is frequently misused, conflated with narrower terms like Open Access, or applied ('open washing') to products and practices that are not genuinely open, which dilutes its intended meaning. A position belongs here if it concerns the difficulty, ambiguity, or misapplication of Open Scholarship-related terms or concepts themselves. It would NOT belong if it instead concerns the substantive practices of openness (e.g., data sharing, licensing rules, funder mandates) without reference to terminological confusion or misuse.", "judgedDefinitionVersion": "topdown-ext-v2", "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1373/c540", "osft-doc-1373/c253", "osft-doc-1373/c539", "osft-doc-1673/c157", "osft-doc-0441/c233", "osft-doc-1373/c532", "osft-doc-1373/c535", "open-science-source-38/c291", "osft-doc-1459/c566", "osft-doc-1373/c531" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 10, "claims": 30, "documents": 7 } }, { "id": "C46-forrt-s-community-built-database", "kind": "convergence", "name": "FORRT's community-built database curates, organizes, and summarizes open-scholarship resources.", "definition": "Members describe a specific curated database of open and reproducible scholarship resources: how it is organized (categorized into topic clusters, enriched with educational metadata, searchable by cluster or term), how it is built and maintained (community-designed, open to contributions, kept current by users), and how individual resource summaries are produced (drafted and peer-revised by community members, containing abstracts, takeaways, quotes, and related-article suggestions). A new position belongs here only if it describes the structure, governance, or content-production process of this specific resource database or its summaries. Positions belong to a different theme if they argue for open scholarship practices in general, describe unrelated repositories or infrastructures, or make normative claims about why resources should be open rather than simply describing how this database functions.", "route": "corpus", "coherence": "high", "judgedName": "FORRT's community-built database curates, organizes, and summarizes open-scholarship resources.", "judgedDefinition": "Members describe a specific curated database of open and reproducible scholarship resources: how it is organized (categorized into topic clusters, enriched with educational metadata, searchable by cluster or term), how it is built and maintained (community-designed, open to contributions, kept current by users), and how individual resource summaries are produced (drafted and peer-revised by community members, containing abstracts, takeaways, quotes, and related-article suggestions). A new position belongs here only if it describes the structure, governance, or content-production process of this specific resource database or its summaries. Positions belong to a different theme if they argue for open scholarship practices in general, describe unrelated repositories or infrastructures, or make normative claims about why resources should be open rather than simply describing how this database functions.", "judgedDefinitionVersion": "topdown-ext-v2", "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1878/c210", "osft-doc-0441/c216", "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/c192", "osft-doc-0441/c215", "osft-doc-0441/c219", "osft-doc-0441/c220", "osft-doc-0441/c221", "osft-doc-0441/c223", "osft-doc-0441/c227", "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/c265", "osft-doc-0441/c266", "osft-doc-0441/c267", "osft-doc-0441/c268", "osft-doc-0441/c269", "osft-doc-0441/c270", "osft-doc-1878/c213" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 31, "claims": 65, "documents": 2 } }, { "id": "C47-repositories-should-attach-a-standardized", "kind": "convergence", "name": "Repositories should attach a standardized notice template with license, ORCID, and funding data.", "definition": "Members describe a standardized notice or statement template attached to deposited works under a public access policy, specifying what optional information it may carry (copyright license, author ORCID ID, funding agreement number), who may attach it (the funding agency, a repository manager, or a publisher depositing on the agency's behalf), and the procedural rules governing its use (agencies choosing between template wording options, repositories adding missing language before a work is made public). A position belongs here if it concerns the content, attachment responsibility, or timing/procedure of this specific compliance-notice template; it would not belong if it instead concerns the substantive embargo length, licensing terms themselves, or unrelated deposit-format requirements rather than the template mechanism itself.", "route": "corpus", "coherence": "high", "judgedName": "Repositories should attach a standardized notice template with license, ORCID, and funding data.", "judgedDefinition": "Members describe a standardized notice or statement template attached to deposited works under a public access policy, specifying what optional information it may carry (copyright license, author ORCID ID, funding agreement number), who may attach it (the funding agency, a repository manager, or a publisher depositing on the agency's behalf), and the procedural rules governing its use (agencies choosing between template wording options, repositories adding missing language before a work is made public). A position belongs here if it concerns the content, attachment responsibility, or timing/procedure of this specific compliance-notice template; it would not belong if it instead concerns the substantive embargo length, licensing terms themselves, or unrelated deposit-format requirements rather than the template mechanism itself.", "judgedDefinitionVersion": "topdown-ext-v2", "starIds": [ "open-science-source-24-c3/c56", "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" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 7, "claims": 16, "documents": 2 } }, { "id": "C48-ecrin-certifies-clinical-trial-centers", "kind": "convergence", "name": "ECRIN certifies clinical trial centers' data management processes for GCP compliance.", "definition": "These positions describe ECRIN's role in certifying and quality-assuring the data-collection and database-management processes of non-commercial clinical trial centers, ensuring compliance with Good Clinical Practice (GCP) standards. They specify that ECRIN's target is specialized clinical trial centers rather than generic research repositories, though its quality-assurance procedures are seen as potentially transferable to other types of health data. A new position belongs here if it concerns certification, quality assurance, or data-management processes specific to clinical trial infrastructure or ECRIN; it would not belong if it addresses general repository practices, data sharing policy, or open-science principles unrelated to trial-center certification.", "route": "corpus", "coherence": "high", "judgedName": "ECRIN certifies clinical trial centers' data management processes for GCP compliance.", "judgedDefinition": "These positions describe ECRIN's role in certifying and quality-assuring the data-collection and database-management processes of non-commercial clinical trial centers, ensuring compliance with Good Clinical Practice (GCP) standards. They specify that ECRIN's target is specialized clinical trial centers rather than generic research repositories, though its quality-assurance procedures are seen as potentially transferable to other types of health data. A new position belongs here if it concerns certification, quality assurance, or data-management processes specific to clinical trial infrastructure or ECRIN; it would not belong if it addresses general repository practices, data sharing policy, or open-science principles unrelated to trial-center certification.", "judgedDefinitionVersion": "topdown-ext-v2", "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1507/c122", "osft-doc-1507/c123", "osft-doc-1507/c125", "osft-doc-1507/c126" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 4, "claims": 8, "documents": 2 } }, { "id": "C49-nestor-s-certification-criteria-span", "kind": "convergence", "name": "Nestor's certification criteria span legal, organizational, financial, and FAIR-aligned technical concerns", "definition": "Members describe the scope of the Nestor criteria catalog for trustworthy digital repositories, enumerating the categories it covers: legal matters (regulations, contracts), organizational matters (staffing, qualifications, roles and responsibilities), financial matters (sustainability), and technical/data matters that parallel the four FAIR axes (persistent identifiers, discovery, access, licenses, provenance, and reuse). A new position belongs here if it identifies a specific domain or category of concern that Nestor's criteria address. It would not belong if it discusses preservation criteria or requirements unconnected to Nestor, or if it makes a substantive claim about FAIR itself rather than about Nestor's coverage of FAIR-like aspects.", "route": "corpus", "coherence": "high", "judgedName": "Nestor's certification criteria span legal, organizational, financial, and FAIR-aligned technical concerns", "judgedDefinition": "Members describe the scope of the Nestor criteria catalog for trustworthy digital repositories, enumerating the categories it covers: legal matters (regulations, contracts), organizational matters (staffing, qualifications, roles and responsibilities), financial matters (sustainability), and technical/data matters that parallel the four FAIR axes (persistent identifiers, discovery, access, licenses, provenance, and reuse). A new position belongs here if it identifies a specific domain or category of concern that Nestor's criteria address. It would not belong if it discusses preservation criteria or requirements unconnected to Nestor, or if it makes a substantive claim about FAIR itself rather than about Nestor's coverage of FAIR-like aspects.", "judgedDefinitionVersion": "topdown-ext-v2", "starIds": [ "osft-doc-1507/c60", "osft-doc-1507/c61", "osft-doc-1507/c62", "osft-doc-1507/c63" ], "declaredCounts": { "stars": 4, "claims": 8, "documents": 2 } } ] }