Transparency and openness are core scientific values that enable independent verification of reported research results. The Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines, first published in 2015 (TOP 2015), provided a flexible framework for journals to design and implement publication standards promoting these values. Over the past decade, widespread use of TOP 2015 contributed to valuable evidence and feedback for refinement. The TOP Advisory Board undertook a comprehensive update of TOP 2015 that went into effect in 2025 (TOP 2025). The update introduces an explicit conceptual framework clarifying its primary objective: improving the verifiability of empirical research claims. Standards are reorganized into three categories (Research Practices, Verification Practices, and Verification Studies) that resolve conceptual and structural limitations of TOP 2015. Research Practices include seven discrete practices implemented in three ways: Disclosed, Shared and Cited, and Certified. Verification Practices introduce standards for computational reproducibility and results transparency, while Verification Studies enumerate empirical research designs and publication formats that support verification of results. Language now centers on researchers and studies (rather than journals) to facilitate adoption by funders, research organizations, preprint servers, evidence curators, and other interest-holders. These changes promote flexible implementation and contextual tailoring. TOP 2025 retains the core strengths of TOP 2015 while addressing feedback from a decade of implementation and advances in open science. Rather than a universal mandate, it provides a shared, adaptable framework to coordinate the design, implementation, and communication of open policies across interest-holders.

DOGE needs to completely rethink its efforts to increase the efficiency of the federal agencies that fund research in the US.

Column Editor's Note: Stuart Buck, in his contribution to this Reinforcing Reproducibility and Replicability column, ponders the value of direct replications and posits that more should be done, by funders, to support such direct replications. He argues that the value lies in part in letting such replication attempts tease out and test the documented steps, procedures, and mechanisms, removing the tacit or implicit knowledge that sometimes is present. Call this an audit, a verification, a test. In earlier contributions to this column, Butler (2023), Peer (2024), and P & eacute;rignon ( 2024 ) have shown that there is demand for such audits by researchers and institutions. Buck points out the role that funders have in supporting such efforts, because they, too, should care, if they want to achieve their goals of advancing science.

Well-meant changes to improve science could become empty gestures unless underlying values change. Well-meant changes to improve science could become empty gestures unless underlying values change.

This document was submitted by Arnold Ventures in response to a White House request for comments on open access to federally funded research and associated materials (data, code). See https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/03/31/2020-06622/request-for-information-public-access-to-peer-reviewed-scholarly-publications-data-and-code.

The National Science and Technology Council's (NSTC's) Joint Committee on the Research Environment (JCORE) is requesting feedback and recommendations on actions that Federal agencies can take to facilitate reproducibility in research, partnerships to build with other stakeholders in order to increase reproducibility, improve awareness and training in this area, incentivize reporting of null research findings, and align efforts with the international research community. Below, is a current assessment of each topic and recommendations for improving research culture in order to meet these goals.

We have developed and implemented normative interventions called “Rigor and Transparency Initiatives”(RTIs) to shift attitudes, norms, and behaviors in research communities. RTIs are usually a collaboration between one or more journals and one or more funders involving a funding call for a special section/issue of journals to promote new behaviors. The purpose is to spur engagement with behaviors that are valued, but not yet incentivized or normative, such as publishing null results and replication studies, or conducting preregistration or Registered Reports to increase rigor and eliminate publication bias against negative findings. RTIs raise awareness about the value of these behaviors, demonstrate support for the behaviors from credible stakeholders (funders, journals), incentivize researchers to try the behaviors, and provide proof-of-concept of the feasibility, value, and impact of the behaviors. With seven funder partners, we will conduct a naturalistic, longitudinal investigation of the effectiveness of RTIs as a mechanism for culture change toward rigor and transparency to enhance ethical and responsible conduct of research.

Key points It is more important to a funder to know that the research advances knowledge and has an impact on the field than that it is published in a prestigious journal (or not). Improving journal quality assurance is more important than improving the business model. Focusing on open access misses the point that journals need to improve their quality standards.

In the 21st Century, research is increasingly data- and computation-driven. Researchers, funders, and the larger community today emphasize the traits of openness and reproducibility. In March 2017, 13 mostly early-career research leaders who are building their careers around these traits came together with ten university leaders (presidents, vice presidents, and vice provosts), representatives from four funding agencies, and eleven organizers and other stakeholders in an NIH- and NSF-funded one-day, invitation-only workshop titled "Imagining Tomorrow's University." Workshop attendees were charged with launching a new dialog around open research – the current status, opportunities for advancement, and challenges that limit sharing. The workshop examined how the internet-enabled research world has changed, and how universities need to change to adapt commensurately, aiming to understand how universities can and should make themselves competitive and attract the best students, staff, and faculty in this new world. During the workshop, the participants re-imagined scholarship, education, and institutions for an open, networked era, to uncover new opportunities for universities to create value and serve society. They expressed the results of these deliberations as a set of 22 principles of tomorrow's university across six areas: credit and attribution, communities, outreach and engagement, education, preservation and reproducibility, and technologies. Activities that follow on from workshop results take one of three forms. First, since the workshop, a number of workshop authors have further developed and published their white papers to make their reflections and recommendations more concrete. These authors are also conducting efforts to implement these ideas, and to make changes in the university system. Second, we plan to organise a follow-up workshop that focuses on how these principles could be implemented. Third, we believe that the outcomes of this workshop support and are connected with recent theoretical work on the position and future of open knowledge institutions.

In the 21st Century, research is increasingly data- and computation-driven. Researchers, funders, and the larger community today emphasize the traits of openness and reproducibility. In March 2017, 13 mostly early-career research leaders who are building their careers around these traits came together with ten university leaders (presidents, vice presidents, and vice provosts), representatives from four funding agencies, and eleven organizers and other stakeholders in an NIH- and NSF-funded one-day, invitation-only workshop titled "Imagining Tomorrow's University." Workshop attendees were charged with launching a new dialog around open research – the current status, opportunities for advancement, and challenges that limit sharing. The workshop examined how the internet-enabled research world has changed, and how universities need to change to adapt commensurately, aiming to understand how universities can and should make themselves competitive and attract the best students, staff, and faculty in this new world. During the workshop, the participants re-imagined scholarship, education, and institutions for an open, networked era, to uncover new opportunities for universities to create value and serve society. They expressed the results of these deliberations as a set of 22 principles of tomorrow's university across six areas: credit and attribution, communities, outreach and engagement, education, preservation and reproducibility, and technologies. Activities that follow on from workshop results take one of three forms. First, since the workshop, a number of workshop authors have further developed and published their white papers to make their reflections and recommendations more concrete. These authors are also conducting efforts to implement these ideas, and to make changes in the university system. Second, we plan to organise a follow-up workshop that focuses on how these principles could be implemented. Third, we believe that the outcomes of this workshop support and are connected with recent theoretical work on the position and future of open knowledge institutions.

Sharing can pose challenges for collaborations

Open access, open data, open source and other open scholarship practices are growing in popularity and necessity. However, widespread adoption of these practices has not yet been achieved. One reason is that researchers are uncertain about how sharing their work will affect their careers. We review literature demonstrating that open research is associated with increases in citations, media attention, potential collaborators, job opportunities and funding opportunities. These findings are evidence that open research practices bring significant benefits to researchers relative to more traditional closed practices.

This is a working paper. Feedback is welcome! Abstract Open access, open data, open source, and other open scholarship practices are growing in necessity and popularity, rapidly becoming part of the integral workflow of researchers. However, widespread adoption of many of these practices has not yet been achieved. Understandably, researchers have concerns as to how sharing their work will affect their careers. Some of these concerns stem from a lack of awareness about the career benefits associated with open research. Herein, we review literature on the open citation advantage, media attention for publicly available research, collaborative possibilities, and special funding opportunities to show how open practices can give researchers a competitive advantage.

The Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Committee met in November 2014 to address one important element of the incentive systems - journals’ procedures and policies for publication. The outcome of the effort is the TOP Guidelines. There are eight standards in the TOP guidelines; each move scientific communication toward greater openness. These standards are modular, facilitating adoption in whole or in part. However, they also complement each other, in that commitment to one standard may facilitate adoption of others. Moreover, the guidelines are sensitive to barriers to openness by articulating, for example, a process for exceptions to sharing because of ethical issues, intellectual property concerns, or availability of necessary resources.

Summarizing my prior work, the only book length treatment of the “acting White” phenomenon (Buck, 2010), I argue that while desegregation was both a moral necessity and a social good, the manner in which desegregation was implemented by White authorities led indirectly to today’s achievement gaps. In the course of desegregation previously all-African-American schools were closed, with their faculty and administrators typically demoted or terminated, and their students sent to previously all-White schools, where they were not always welcomed. This massive social change established scholarly achievement as part of a White identity, not a Black identity. Unfortunately, this diagnoses may not lend itself to easy solutions.

This is an open letter concerning the recent launch of the new open access journal, Science Advances. In addition to the welcome diversification in journal choices for authors looking for open access venues, there are many positive aspects of Science Advances: its broad STEM scope, its interest in cross-disciplinary research, and the offering of fee waivers. While we welcome the commitment of the Association to open access, we are also deeply concerned with the specific approach. Herein, we outline a number of suggestions that are in line with both the current direction that scholarly publishing is taking and the needs expressed by the open access community, which this journal aims to serve. The first of these issues concerns the licensing terms of the journal articles. The default choice of a non-commercial licence (CC BY-NC) places unnecessary restrictions on reuse and does not meet the standards set out by the Budapest Open Access Initiative. Many large funders, including Research Councils UK and the Wellcome Trust, do not recognise this as an open license. The adoption of CC BY-NC as the default license means that many researchers will be unable to submit to Science Advances if they are to conform to their funder mandates unless they pay for the upgrade to CC BY. There is little evidence that non-commercial restrictions provide a benefit to the progress of scholarly research, yet they have significant negative impact, limiting the ability to reuse material for educational purposes and advocacy. For example, NC-encumbered materials cannot be used on Wikipedia. The non-commercial clause is known to generate ambiguities and uncertainties (see for example, NC Licenses Considered Harmful) to the detriment of scholarly communication. Additionally, there is little robust evidence to suggest that adopting a CC-BY license will lead to income loss for your Association, and the $1,000 surcharge is difficult to justify or defend. The value of the CC BY license is outlined in detail by the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association. We raise an additional issue with the $1,500 surcharge for articles more than 10 pages in length. In an online-only format, page length is an arbitrary unit that results from the article being read in PDF format. Can the AAAS explain what the additional costs associated with the increased length are that would warrant a 50% increase in APC for an unspecified number of additional digital pages? Other leading open access journals, such as PeerJ, the BMC series, and PLOS ONE, offer publication of articles with unlimited page lengths. The extra costs create constraints that may adversely incentivize authors to exclude important details of their study, preventing replication and hindering transparency, all of which are contrary to the aims of scholarly publication. Therefore it seems counterproductive to impose this additional charge; it discriminates against researchers' best effort to communicate their findings with as much detail as necessary. We feel that the proposed APCs and licencing scheme are detrimental to the AAAS and the global academic community. As such, we recommend that Science Advances: 1. Offers CC BY as standard for no additional cost, in line with leading open access publishers, so authors are able to comply with respective funding mandates; 2. Provides a transparent calculation of its APCs based on the publishing practices of the AAAS and explains how additional value created by the journal will measure against the significantly high prices paid by the authors; 3. Removes the surcharges associated with increased page number; 4. Releases all data files under CC0 (with CC BY optional), which has emerged as the community standard for data and is used by leading databases such as Figshare and DataDryad. We hope that you will consider the points raised above, keeping in mind how best to serve the scientific community, and use Science Advances to add the AAAS to the group of progressive and innovative open access scholarly publishers. We hope AAAS will collaborate with the academic community to facilitate the dissemination of scientific knowledge through a journal committed to fully embracing the principles of Open Access. We kindly request that you allow your response(s) to be made public along with this letter, and look forward to hearing your response soon. (Please note that the views expressed here represent those of the individuals and not the institutions or organization with which they are affiliated)