The Open Science Monitoring Initiative (OSMI) is making significant strides in shaping the future of open science monitoring through its dedicated working groups. Each group is tackling critical aspects of monitoring, from scoping needs to developing frameworks and infrastructure. Here’s a snapshot of their progress and why their reports are worth reading:
1. Working Group 1: Scoping the Needs of Open Science Monitoring
Co-chaired by Nabila Salisu and Julián D. Cortés, WG1 has been instrumental in defining the foundational elements of open science monitoring. Their 2025 report highlights key activities, including brainstorming sessions, subgroup discussions, and a global survey to identify monitoring priorities, barriers, and methodological preferences. A standout finding is the need for equity-sensitive, mixed-method approaches to avoid reinforcing inequities.
Key Takeaways:
– Monitoring should support learning, equity, and transformation, not just compliance.
– Expand monitoring beyond Open Access to include Open and FAIR data, reproducibility, and societal engagement.
– Major barriers include governance gaps, cost constraints, and capacity limitations.
Read the full report: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19218799
2. Working Group 2: Understanding the Open Science Monitoring Landscape
Led by Lamis Elkheir and Tereza Szybisty, WG2 has mapped over 70 open science monitoring initiatives worldwide, creating a structured dataset for comparative analysis, which is currently open for consultation. Their March 2026 report outlines methodologies for consolidating initiatives, identifying gaps, and preparing a landscape analysis report.
Key Results:
– A shared definition of monitoring initiatives was agreed upon, aligned with the OSMI Principles.
– Challenges include deduplicating fragmented sources and ensuring community feedback.
– An open consultation was launched to enhance the open science monitoring initiatives dataset.
– Upcoming deliverables include a dashboard.
Read the full report: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19221942
3. Working Group 3: Open Science Monitoring with Scholarly Content Providers
Co-chaired by Lebogang Gopolang and Iratxe Puebla, WG3 focuses on engaging scholarly content providers in monitoring efforts. Their March 2026 report details survey findings, case studies, and recommendations for indicators, categorised into enablers, outputs, and outcomes.
Key Takeaways:
– Survey results reveal motivations, implementation approaches, and resourcing needs.
– A framework for indicators is being finalised, with deliverables expected by May 2026.
– Case studies will showcase existing practices by scholarly content providers.
Read the full report: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19218846
4. Working Group 4: Shared Resources and Infrastructure for Scholarly Outputs
Pragya Chaube and Cristina Huidiu lead WG4, which aims to foster open-source tools and resource pooling for analysing scholarly outputs. Their report highlights information from the French Open Science Monitor and survey findings on infrastructure maturity.
Key Takeaways:
– Subgroups are being finalised to define deliverables and timelines.
– Challenges include low participation and demographic diversity.
– Upcoming outputs will synthesise subgroup findings for broader OSMI reporting.
Read the full report: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19218869
Each working group is contributing to a more inclusive, equitable, and data-driven approach to open science monitoring. Whether you’re a researcher, policymaker, or advocate, these reports offer valuable insights into current practices, challenges, and future directions.
Check out the full reports and join the conversation on shaping the future of open science monitoring!