Want to Make Science Work Better? Let’s Talk About How.
Highlights of ICOR Public Meeting #11, 29 Jun 2026
Please see the video below and the chat record for the full recording of the webinar.
Introduction
Kristen opened the meeting by highlighting the significance of the National Academies Roundtable on Aligning Incentives for Open Scholarship and its spin-off action collaborative, which is focused on creating a new research communication paradigm, to establish context and relevance.
She then presented a preliminary messaging concept to clarify the purpose of open science and effectively show how it addresses current inefficiencies in the research system (streaming video 3-10 min, Chat record for community discussion). She then sought feedback from the audience to refine messaging for policymakers, government officials, and funders who are unfamiliar with open science concepts.
If you have any thoughts or input on this messaging, we welcome your feedback too.
Research Assembly for ‘Full-Stack’ Research Sharing
Rowan Cockett, Founder , Curvenote and Co Founder, Continuous Science Foundation [slides; streaming video 10-20 min]
Rowan presented the progress of the Research Assembly group in developing open standards through modular, machine-actionable packages. These packages integrate data, code, and methods directly with traditional narratives. The group discussed the importance of structured, provenance-rich formats for verifying the authenticity and depth of scientific research, especially in an era where AI can easily generate text. They also explored the socio-technical bridge needed to connect modern digital workflows with current publishing formats, aiming to improve how science is conducted and shared.
The viability of this approach is exemplified by the Open Exchange Architecture (OXA) schema, an emerging standard developed through a partnership between Curvenote and openRxiv. This schema has successfully converted over 500,000 preprints into structured formats, which can be accessed here. To build on this momentum and transform research from static PDFs into dynamic, reusable units for both humans and AI, the group plans to move forward with several immediate next steps. These include convening core technology working groups, launching targeted pilot programs in computational biology, neuroscience, and earth science, and securing modest investments for community management and technical integration of the schema.
Building a Record of Versions: “The Knowledge Graph”
Stephanie Orphan, Program Director, arXiv: [slides; streaming video 20-28 mins]
Stephanie presented the progress of the Records of Versions group, outlining a goal to create a standardized protocol for research packages that provides transparent provenance and enables an understanding of a research project’s lifecycle. This aim was to help anyone understand the history, limitations, and developmental trajectory of reported research and its derivatives, thereby expanding the scientific record with richer context and encouraging greater engagement.
The group discussed improving the current knowledge graph, noting that while the metadata is mostly available, it is poorly connected. Strengthening this information layer and linking these nodes is essential. With the knowledge graph in mind, the group proposed a constellation-like approach, allowing users to determine the center of the graph themselves so they can connect relevant research outputs. They also discussed implementing a versioning system similar to software development, which would categorize versions into major, minor, and trivial updates.
The proposed action pathway for the group included investigating how to improve existing metadata, auditing current versioning protocols, engaging the community, and achieving global alignment on metadata standards with the goal of working towards a community-driven, machine-readable protocols.
Transparency and Trust Signals
Richard Sever, Chief Science and Strategy Officer, openRxiv: [slides; streaming video 28-35 mins]
Richard presented the progress of the Transparency and Trust Signals group who proposed a framework for multidimensional trust indicators that can be verified at various stages of the research process. This framework addresses a key vulnerability in the current ecosystem: without clear and reliable trust signals, the research system risks becoming overwhelmed by content of uncertain quality, shifting the burden of information verification entirely onto experts. By establishing trust signals, the system will provide significant value to researchers, the public, research assessors, and all downstream consumers of research data.
The group’s proposed architecture was a triangular model consisting of three distinct nodes: repositories, metadata authorities, and checkers, all interconnected through bidirectional data flows. The group’s focus was on the checks layer, which manages integrity, completeness, and quality checks. These checks could be hosted either within the repositories themselves or by independent third parties. To ensure that these signals are easily discoverable, an open index layer could then ingest and publicly display the verified indicators.
To implement this framework, the group outlined a plan to conduct a comprehensive review of existing signals and checks, categorised by output type, and to perform targeted user research to identify which signals are most valuable to stakeholders. The insights gained from these activities will inform the development of an initial, comprehensive, yet extensible framework. Following this, the group suggested deploying one initial signal in a pilot demonstration. After the pilot, the framework could be refined based on real-world performance, and a formal governing body will be established.
Redefining Publishing: “Practical Pathways to Open Science” Report Summary
Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, Director, Open Research Solutions at Public Library of Science (PLOS): [slides; streaming video 38-45 mins]
To complement the group’s design approach, Iain presented evidence highlighting the community’s needs in redesigning how we share and consume knowledge. He summarised the findings from PLOS’s 18-month research and design project, “Redefining Publishing,” which examined how publishing can better support open science. The report provided context on how the community sees moving beyond viewing the article as the sole unit of value and toward approaches that foster broader participation and recognition of a wider range of research outputs. The report combined independent economic analysis, stakeholder meetings, interviews, desk research, prototype testing, and user-centered design research involving researchers, library representatives, funders, institutional leaders, infrastructure providers, and regional networks across various regions.
This report provides important information on where the community is now and gives us a foundation for meeting them where they are and bringing them on the journey. It helps us frame any redesign approach as building with and for them, not the build-it-and-they-will-come approach.
Next Steps
This meeting highlighted the interconnected themes of three Action Collaborative groups: Research Assembly, Record of Versions, and Transparency and Trust Signals. A modern research infrastructure should rely on interoperable, metadata-driven standards rather than centralized platforms, shifting the focus from a “version of record” model to one that accommodates multiple, evolving versions of research. This new system must be designed primarily for researchers, with added value from downstream services. However, it faces two significant challenges: navigating the complex governance necessary to prevent politicization and moving beyond a legacy system that is optimized for journals, rather than today’s era of machine-assisted execution and simulation.
The momentum continues. The Action Collaborative is already progressing with the remaining two groups, ‘Reviewing‘ and ‘Curation and Synthesis‘, and plans to hold a future ICOR meeting to discuss that progress. The goal moving forward is to integrate all five core areas, coordinate with related communities through shared frameworks, and develop robust feedback channels. Redesigning how we share and consume research is a substantial challenge, which is why we will keep collaborating, benchmarking against similar industries, and rigorously testing every idea against the actual needs of researchers.
If you want to learn more or share your own initiatives, please reach out. Active collaboration remains essential to making this progress a reality.
ICOR Community members: please suggest topics or volunteer to host future public meetings on this Google Form.