🗣️ #OpenScience policy wonks and policy-curious folks: Join @cos.io on 3/11 at 12pm ET for an intro to the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines. We’ll cover the core components and how researchers and policymakers can apply them.
Register 👉 cos-io.zoom.us/webinar/regi...
Scientific datasets built over decades can vanish when access has a single point of failure. IOI secured funding from Global Impact to help coordinate resilient open infrastructure solutions.
More on this project: investinopen.org/blog/investi...
My heart is with the Iranian people and the country that is my beautiful homeland 💚
All I see on my timeline is devastation, but this is what I think of when I think of Iran.
As a member of @cos.io effort to build a more resilient ecosystem (see link below if you missed it), we want to draw attention to the call for feedback. Be sure to share your thoughts with us by March 2, ahead of our next planning meeting, using the survey on the post!
www.cos.io/blog/buildin...
Reading this, I can't help but think about a male former colleague who defended Larry Summers to me in... 2024. All while telling me that my work on open science, public engagement, and equity was "cute."
19thnews.org/2026/02/epst...
There were so many of us, exactly when these emails were being written, expressly working to undo the harms of sexual harassment and sexual discrimination in science. And so many people refused to believe us that any of it was real. It was all real.
19thnews.org/2026/02/epst...
Scientific datasets built over decades can vanish when access has a single point of failure. IOI secured funding from Global Impact to help coordinate resilient open infrastructure solutions.
More on this project:
investinopen.org/blog/investi...
💡 Rather than reinventing the wheel, we're aiming to coordinate and amplify existing efforts, while identifying any gaps to galvanize more action.
Ahead of the committee's in-person meeting in early March, we want to hear from you. Share your thoughts with us through this survey 👇
(3/3)
The strategy will be built on three pillars:
🔍 Mapping + tracing where the ecosystem is most vulnerable today
🏗️ Defining characteristics of a healthy, resilient future state + charting a community-informed path to get there
📢 Equipping the community with a shared outreach + advocacy strategy
(2/3)
Publicly-funded research data are a public good. But the infrastructures housing these data face mounting risks — funding instability, policy shifts + capacity constraints.
Last fall, we kicked off a community-driven strategic planning effort to build a more resilient research data ecosystem. (1/3)
So deeply excited and humbled to join this cohort of amazing emerging leaders in STEM! Can't wait to collaborate with this group on ways we can pool our expertise to advance science and research for the public good 🎉
2026 New Voices cohort at the National Academies
COS is thrilled to share that Maryam Zaringhalam, Senior Director of Policy, has been named to the 2026 New Voices cohort at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. Congratulations, Maryam!
🔬 Read more about the program for emerging STEM leaders: nas.edu/newvoices
Meme from the Simpsons, reading "0 days without needing to save data from the US federal government."
It's official. One year ago today we formalized as the Data Rescue Project. We know this work is exhausting and are so grateful to everyone who has showed up, day in and day out.
(2/2)
3. Leveraging and supporting metascience to better assess the impact of GSS policymaking efforts, as well as new and flexible funding mechanisms alluded to in the plan
4. Supporting a *robust independent external* grant review process in light of recent changes to NSF's grant making processes
We used this as an opportunity to advocate for (1/2):
1. Strengthened investments in open science infrastructures to enable robust + reliable sharing of research outputs
2. Supporting community-driven standards development for appropriate + effective reuse of datasets to power AI-driven discovery
@cos.io just submitted recommendations in response to NSF's request for input on their draft strategic plan for 2026-2030. Our response outlines funding and partnership priorities to enable meaningful implementation of Gold Standard Science, while also ensuring the independence of science.
Ever wonder how #openscience policies are made?
@cos.io kicked off a campaign to illustrate how our TOP guidelines translate into action. This month, we walk through how we crafted funder policies for our Funding Consciousness Research with Registered Reports initiative.
Our comments will also draw from our recent response to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.
For folks interested in submitting public comments, we've been working with experts in the open science, scientific integrity, and public trust in science to build out resources for folks interested in navigating the Gold Standard Science implementation space.
The National Science Foundation is requesting public comment on its draft strategic plan due 1/27. Objective 1.1 focuses on the agency's Gold Standard Science (GSS) implementation, which is where @cos.io will be focusing our response 👉 www.nsf.gov/od/updates/n...
Hope to see lots of #information community people at this @nisoinfo.bsky.social webinar on Jan 14, 11am ET. Jay Patel @saysjkemp.bsky.social @kawulf.bsky.social @webmz.bsky.social & bsky.app/profile/rant... will be discussing the state of our community now & in future
niso.org/state-of-the...
@cos.io shared actions to accelerate American S&T with OSTP. We advocated for continued implementation of federal open science policies, as well as resourcing the needed infrastructure and capacity building to support the research community in meaningful compliance. Read 👉 osf.io/preprints/me...
OSTP issued a RFI for "Accelerating the American Scientific Enterprise." Here's the response from COS by @webmz.bsky.social and @davidmellor.bsky.social
osf.io/preprints/me...
www.federalregister.gov/documents/20...
Excellent work getting it written and submitted before the Dec 26(!) deadline.
"The ability to tell the truth… is an essential prerequisite for a free society. Scientists can leverage their substantial social standing&trustworthiness to preserve this vital ingredient."
@gretchentg.bsky.social's actionable call to scientists to defend democracy: www.science.org/doi/10.1126/...
There's obviously A LOT going on in the EO, but I'm struck by how clearly it articulates a double standard. While applicants must adhere to GSS, political officials are given authority to disregard their own standard of peer review — one of course valued by researchers and the broader public.
The EO goes on: "Nothing in this order shall be construed to discourage or prevent the use of peer review... provided... recommendations remain advisory and are not ministerially ratified, routinely deferred to, or otherwise treated as de facto binding."
How does that uphold peer review?
Sec 3 layers political control into funding decisions, designating a political appointee to develop a process. Agencies already have long-standing processes for grantmaking, drawing on expertise of program officers and peer reviewers. Allowing a political to override these runs counter to GSS.
As an aside: there's a lot to be said about the Gold Standard Science EO. Do we legitimize the EO by adopting the phrase "Gold Standard" like it's an independent standard rather than a political tool? Does it matter when it's already out there? Regardless, this EO doesn't pass muster with GSS.
Yesterday's EO on federal grantmaking makes several references to "Gold Standard Science" while at its core it violates the administration's own stated standard VI: "subject to unbiased peer review."
www.whitehouse.gov/presidential...
