Helping science succeed
Helping science succeed

OSI 2019 Annual Report



The Open Scholarship Initiative began in late 2014. It officially got underway in early 2015 thanks to support from the library and communications teams at George Mason University (arranged by Eric Olson), and to a pledge of financial support from UNESCO (arranged by Bhanu Neupane).

The first year of OSI was devoted to laying the foundation for what we would try to accomplish, and to finding and recruiting top-notch participants from around the world. The second two years—2016 and 2017—centered around fact-finding, featuring two full-group conferences from which numerous papers were published. The next phase—2018 and 2019—focused on action planning.

OSI’s 2019 work expanded on the foundation laid by OSI’s 2018 summit group, which was led by Scott Plutchak. We now have a plan that embraces the full measure of OSI’s thinking over the past five years, and that we hope to start enacting early this year. While we will still collect facts and refine our plans, we have a good idea exactly what OSI will try to accomplish over the next five years and how. We hope the global community will join us in this effort, and we will also continue to help the global community—particularly UNESCO—realize their plans as well.

Thank you to all the OSI participants who have contributed to this effort over the years, and to the individual donors and corporate sponsors who have helped make this work possible. Thank you as well to the Science Communication Institute (SCI) board for allowing me to continue to devote full-time work to OSI.


Glenn Hampson
Program director, OSI
Executive director, SCI


OSI’s 2019 work focused on building a bridge to 2020—continuing our pivot from being an organization focused on understanding facts and perspectives, to one poised to pursue a significant, global reform agenda. This is a challenge for any group—doubly so for a group like OSI at the pioneering edge of a nebulous field, while also trying to maintain a republic format where all participants are co-equal leaders. OSI’s strategy in 2019 focused primarily on these three agenda items:

  1. Find sustainable financing. OSI sent out several dozen grant applications and letters of inquiry this year. Most of these funding requests were in the US$20k-$50k range. In the meantime, our historic sources of support fell away in 2019. The Sloan Foundation changed its funding focus, the major commercial publishers weren’t quite as generous as in the past, and UNESCO didn’t contribute any funding at all. Scholarly communication in general continues to be an underfunded space, except for more ideologically-driven “publishers need to be put out of business” efforts that are being funded. OSI also submitted several major grant proposals in the US$250k-$2m range. Some of these proposals, large and small, are still outstanding.The OSI summit group made several recommendations for improving our future funding success, including dividing our work into smaller, more fundable components (not just “studies,” for example, but specific studies), and connecting our work more clearly to urgent issues in education, research, and public policy.
  2. Help coordinate the construction of a new global roadmap for open. A number of stakeholder groups in scholarly communication now realize that broad, collaborative reform action is needed. What we are seeing today are parallel, high-level efforts around the world to create a new roadmap for the future of open. However, there is no convergence of activity for this work, and no central coordinating point. Properly funded and executed, OSI can fill this needed role—not necessarily as a convener or authority, but as an observatory and voice to keep these similar and important efforts connected, aware of each other’s existence and activities, and coordinated so actions and policies can have more impact. We need this central hub to ensure that we can have reasonable, sustainable, global, inclusive action—a group to inform, coordinate and share policies that will help lay the groundwork for the future of open research/data and open science in particular.

The implications of successfully creating a global roadmap are broad—improved equity, education, economic development, scientific progress, and more. The implications of failure might also be broad—particularly with regard to less access to research in the global south and the education and economic consequences this loss might entail (OSI’s Plan S paper, published in early 2019 and available on the OSI website, describes how such a scenario might unfold—essentially by adopting global reform measures that work well for Europe and Latin America, but not for the rest of the world).

The United Nations is one of the more active organizations in the open roadmap space. Its work is being coordinated by UNESCO—the UN General Conference officially tasked UNESCO with this responsibility and authority in 2019. OSI will be involved in 2020 as an advisor in this effort (see Annex), and will also continue to serve in the “NOASIR” role for UNESCO—as UNESCO’s Network for Open Access to Scientific Information and Research. What this means is that UNESCO is relying on OSI to support and cultivate the international open environment and connect stakeholders, support research and development in open technologies, policies and practices, defend access to scientific journals to developing countries, and serve as a laboratory for innovation and a catalyst for international cooperation. We’re not hitting all of these marks at the moment but we aren’t aiming for them yet either—we simply don’t have the necessary funding or staffing. At the moment, what is within our reach is to continue serving as UNESCO’s multi-stakeholder policy advisory group on open access; we are also prepared to help with the 2020 roadmap effort and have been active in drawing other UN agencies and non-UN groups into this effort.

Whether as part of the UN’s work, and/or alongside other roadmap efforts, OSI hopes to:

    1. Help develop a fuller understanding of open research/data questions, answers and concerns.
    2. Help countries understand how this issue (and current global proposals) impacts their equity, education and development goals, through outreach and education programs
    3. Help create a global environment of cooperation regarding developing appropriate global action
    4. Help ensure that “research” improvements aren’t just for science, but HSS as well
    5. Develop needed global products/actions needed (with possible help from industry partners), and
    6. Work on existing priorities (alongside other OSI partners.

Having a navigable roadmap for open research is critical to the future of research, education and global economic development. However, developing this roadmap is a largely ignored effort, the assumption being that the current kaleidoscope of grass-roots activism, government/funder actions and business interests will somehow coalesce to create the right approach for the world. It hasn’t, and it won’t. OSI was specifically created to bring all stakeholders together to find an approach that works for everyone everywhere, and now, not 20 years from now. OSI’s unique capabilities include:

    1. Understanding: OSI has developed what is arguably the world’s most complete understanding of this very complex issue space.
    2. Commitment: OSI has a unique commitment to developing a global, multi-stakeholder approach to the future of how research is published and shared. There are no other efforts like this in the world. Instead, there are a funder-driven efforts trying to implement global reforms, and a range of efforts focused on regional or discipline-specific reforms. OSI’s goal is to create these programs only through broad, inclusive global consultation and cooperation, and to leave implementation a matter of national prerogative.
    3. Tenure: We have been working on this issue since early 2015 in partnership with UNESCO.
    4. Membership: OSI currently includes around 400 high-level representatives from 27 countries, 250 institutions, and 20 stakeholder groups in research and scholarly communication—the only organization taking such a broad and inclusive approach to this complex and important challenge.

3. Prepare for and start work on OSI’s January 2020 to-do list, including:

      1. Start an annual survey of open (possibly in collaboration with another group, or on our own to provide a concise, consistent, annual tally on how fast open is growing)
      2. Work on a developing a publicly-viewable top-10 list of predatory publishers (with information provided by Cabell’s). (Note: This idea hasn’t been officially approved by Cabell’s, but we have been discussing the possible parameters of it for a few months now.)
      3. Develop, launch and promote OSI’s Plan A (see Annex)
      4. Support UNESCO’s interagency work (see Annex)
      5. Support study work being done by other scholars in this space
      6. Write more issue briefs (top topics to be addressed: impact factors, peer review reform, embargos, open impact, publisher profit margins, global flip, Plan S)
      7. Begin laying the groundwork for one research paper (maybe the embargo study?)
      8. Look for tech partners who can develop at least one tech product (preferably an easy but high-impact one)
      9. Upgrade the OSI website and OSI marketing/outreach materials, and
      10. Possibly organize/host another conference (particularly if requested by UNESCO).


The Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI) is an ambitious, global, multi-stakeholder effort to improve the openness of research and scholarly outputs, lower the barriers for researchers and scholars everywhere to engage in the global research community, and increase opportunities for all countries and people everywhere to benefit from this engagement. Closely connected to this work, OSI is also focusing on correcting a broad range of scholarly communication deficiencies and inefficiencies—without these corrections, open will not be achievable or sustainable.

There is no other undertaking like this, focusing on improving the entire landscape of scholarly communication everywhere by truly working together on this vital task across institutions, disciplines, regions and stakeholder groups. Working together is the single most important and unique feature of OSI. After all, who speaks for scholarly communication reform today? Is it researchers (and if so, from what disciplines or institutions)? Governments or funders (which ones)? Universities or university libraries? Open access advocates? Publishers (new or old, big or small, subscription or open, north or south, scholarly societies or university presses)? Ask anyone from any of these groups what scholarly communication means and where it’s headed and you’ll hear plenty of ideas—some that overlap and are coordinated, others that diverge and are truly at odds, some that address niche concerns and others with broader audiences and ambitions in mind.

The scholarly communication reform space is awash with opinions, and also activity. But overwhelmingly, not enough of this activity is undertaken in a coordinated, global, multi-stakeholder manner; even less fully considers the global and multi-stakeholder impacts of reform proposals across regions, institutions and disciplines. There simply isn’t a global mechanism to debate and evaluate these proposals, let alone a mechanism with the authority to do more—coordinate, develop, or even fund this kind or work.

It is precisely because the scholarly communication stakeholder community is so diverse, and because developing and implementing solutions requires broad and global input and commitment, that UNESCO, the Science Communication Institute (SCI) and George Mason University launched OSI in the Spring of 2015. The first step in OSI’s journey was to understand the perspectives of each of the stakeholder groups and institutions represented in OSI and search for common ground. This stage of OSI took place during 2016 and 2017.

The next two years, 2018 and 2019, involved figuring out what course adjustments could be made to the current system to continue to improve scholarly communication and what assistance OSI might be able to offer, realistically (considering our size and budget)—new standards, new incentives, better definitions, coordinated policies, collaboration efforts, formal partnerships, new studies, pilot products, and so on. This stage has now concluded, and starting in 2020 the OSI group will begin rolling out our global reform plan (see Plan A in the Annex), fine-tuning this effort until 2025.


Over 400 high-level leaders in scholarly communication from 27 countries around the world are part of OSI. These leaders represent about 250 institutions (in many cases they are the highest official in that institution) and a diverse array of 20 different stakeholder groups, from universities to government agencies to funders, publishers, scholarly societies, and more.


The specific problems this group is addressing are (1) a lack of coordination of other reform efforts in the scholarly communication space, (2) the fact that many of the reform efforts is this space are not designed for broad adoption, therefore impeding more rapid progress on open, and (3) a lack of information and understanding about the true dimensions of this issue.


The three main goals of OSI are to:

  • build a sustainable, robust framework for global communication and cooperation on shaping the future of scholarly communication
  • support a climate for finding common understanding and workable solutions, and
  • help this stakeholder community move toward these solutions together.


The targeted outcomes of this effort include achieving scholarly communication improvement goals faster and on a more predictable trajectory; creating multiple platforms for working on scholarly communication improvements together as a broad stakeholder community; increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of stakeholder efforts by following a common roadmap; and in the end, increasing the amount of research information available to the world and the number of people who can access this information (accruing myriad benefits to research and society).

Unfortunately, measuring these outcomes is problematic, if not impossible. It’s an article of faith in this community that open is a good thing. More research is needed to establish whether this is actually true, and if so, in what ways. That is, do open practices actually make research more usable? In what ways? What kinds of open are most effective? How is open being used? In what fields? What have been the tangible, measurable impacts on research? We hope to conduct more research into these sorts of questions going forward; for now, what we will try to assess is OSI’s success at reaching the mileposts it needs to reach in order to carry out its action plans.

The following table lists some of these measurables. Metrics will be compiled by OSI through quarterly or annual tallies or surveys starting asap.

Main goal Measurable outcomes How measured
Build a sustainable, robust framework for global communication and cooperation on shaping the future of scholarly communication (work is ongoing and tangible) ·       Engagement from OSI listserv, website, issues briefs, events (conferences, meetings), etc.

·       Outreach success (to policy makers, etc.)

·       Funding growth

·       Change in knowledge and attitudes about open

·       Compile various stats of “influence” (posts, views, shares, etc.)

·       Growth in sponsor support

·       Tally of number of engagement events

·       Survey libraries, provosts, publishers, researchers and other stakeholder groups regarding open attitudes

Support a climate for finding common understanding and workable solutions (current stage of work) ·       Lead in the developing and/or catalyzing the development of collaborative open solutions ·       Engagement of global policy-making community

·       Tally of collaborative efforts in this space

Help the scholarly communication stakeholder community move together toward common-ground solutions ·       Number and impact of solutions developed and implemented ·       TBD, depending on when/if we get to this stage


When the roadmap for OSI was first being developed in 2015, our original intent was to hold a series of 10 annual meetings beginning in 2016. Much was learned from the first two meetings as diverse teams collaborated on authoring joint perspectives on a wide range of important issues in scholarly communication (these reports are available on the OSI website at

The following key perspectives were also developed and shared by all: (1) The focus of open cannot be only about cost-savings. Open is going to cost money—the jury is still out on exactly how much, (2) There is mixed and confusing messaging in this space, (3) There are a lack of incentives for several key audiences, particularly researchers, (3) Publishing is critical. Without preservation and access, there is no modern scientific record, (4) Different stakeholder groups are more alike than unalike, (5) Convergent needs are everywhere, (6) We need to get institutions invested in this effort (not necessarily financially)—we all have a stake in the outcome, (7) This conversation needs trust to move forward, and (8) OSI is on the right track and can help.

After these first two meetings, plus thousands of emails covering dozens of deep listserv conversations about scholarly communications issues (all of which are publicly viewable, like the OSI reports), it became apparent that the next step in this process should be to pause and have our summit group meet to formally discuss and plan what comes next. This meeting happened in March of 2018. Many fundamental questions were discussed, and priorities were set. The work of OSI’s 2018 summit group continued throughout 2018, and was then refined and extended by the 2019 summit group and set into our Plan A for action (see Annex) which we will pursue in 2020 and beyond.

How much influence has OSI wielded over the last five years? The answer to this may depend on your perspective. In reality, the open movement is very much an echo chamber. Most people in this universe, including researchers, funders, and governments—arguably the stakeholders who are closest to the center of this conversation—have limited understanding of all the nuances of this debate. So if the question is “How much has OSI moved the needle on open amongst these central stakeholders?” the answer is probably not much—bearing in mind that this needle is gyrating wildly because there is no central point of information, no large-scale sense of urgency or common ground, and no large-scale coordinated action. If the question is “How much has OSI changed hearts and minds of people who firmly believe that ‘open’ means one and one thing only (generally, the definition set forth by the Budapest Open Access Initiative in 2002)?” the answer is probably zero (but then “changing” the minds of our colleagues who hold this opinion was never our goal). If it’s “How aware is the open community of OSI?” the answer is probably moderately high—people who are involved in open know about the OSI listserv, even if they’re less aware of our goals and agenda. If the question is “How much has OSI improved understanding of open amongst a wide group of individuals who need to weigh in on the future of open?” the answer is probably limited but measurable—maybe a modest uptick in broad understanding of open, or at least a realization that the answers we seek aren’t necessarily black and white and/or that the only way to develop effective, sustainable solutions is by working together. As OSI participant Jason Steinhauer puts it, OSI is to cOAlistion S what the American Revolution was to the French Revolution—we are searching for and developing reasoned, sustainable solutions instead of off-with-their-heads solutions. OSIer Richard Gedye’s analogy is that OSI is the Kyoto Protocol of open. Both of these analogies capture the essence of what OSI is trying to accomplish, and explain why progress is going to be measured in years and not months.

Going forward, OSI’s progress will evolve with our business model. We have been evolving—-first from an “observatory” of open (or a clearinghouse), next to a think tank, and maybe soon to a trusted advisor (we aren’t at this latter stage yet). From this advisor stage, we will be trying to evolve to a catalyst and/or solution architect.


The OSI summit group has identified the following priorities for action:

  • Issue Briefs: OSI participants are writing a series of issue briefs covering the many key topics raised so far in OSI. These briefs are intended to represent the perspectives and lessons of experience from all stakeholder groups in scholarly communication, not just single stakeholder viewpoints, and will also identify where progress can be made and what actors need to be involved. UNESCO has pledged to endorse and publicize these briefs, some as new global policy initiatives. Over 50 topics are currently on the issue brief list.
  • Studies: OSI will begin underwriting studies that can target issues in scholarly communication where a lack of firm understanding is making it difficult to create effective policy reforms. The highest priority studies will involve (in this order) impact factors, CC-BY licensing, peer review, and embargoes.
  • Infrastructure Products: OSI will begin developing products that fill specific infrastructure needs in scholarly communication with the goal of helping pave the way toward a more open future.
  • Joint Efforts: OSI will begin undertaking joint efforts with other groups to work at a high level toward achieving common open goals, using common language and tools.
  • Events: OSI will continue hosting meetings to ensure everyone in this space sees the big picture and not just part of it. OSI participants will also continue participating as speakers and panelists in other global meetings, communicating OSI’s lessons of experience and forging partnerships with universities, publishers, research institutions, governments, funders, societies and policy groups interested in moving forward with workable, global solutions to open research. By way of reference, OSI’s opening address for the 14th Annual Debate on Science Communication—an international, high-level prequel to the Falling Walls Conference—is included in the Annex.
  • Outreach and education: One of OSI’s more important goals over the next several years is to develop (by inventing and also pulling together existing materials) a world-class list of open-related resources for scholarly communication stakeholders. This is a work in progress. Resources will include news and commentary, open outreach materials, suggested reading lists, definitions, and key groups/efforts.


What proof is there that cooperation will succeed, and what of criticisms that any effort like this is just watering down existing open goals by cooperating across too diverse a group? For one thing, it’s clear to many people who have followed the changes happening in scholarly communication over the years that a lot of tension and uncertainty exists in the system, and that this tension may be impeding progress toward open more than helping it. People want to know what to do and how, but they aren’t sure who to follow and why, what the long-term implications of change will be for faculty and researchers, how much change needs to be made and how quickly, who will pay for this progress and how, and a whole slew of other critical questions that don’t have simple black and white answers. Having a forum where these issues can be thoughtfully discussed across stakeholder groups is critical for making more rapid progress on this issue.

It’s also clear that there is no current, workable roadmap for global action in scholarly communication, and that once one is developed, no one actor will by themselves be able to affect change across this very diverse and interconnected space. Only by working together will be able to achieve open goals.

Finally, and maybe most importantly, it has become increasingly clear to the OSI community that we need to work harder to ensure that what we’re doing is for the benefit of researchers first and foremost—that we involve more researchers in these conversations, listen to their concerns, and design solutions that work for their disciplines and institutions. This really isn’t being done anywhere on a global and interdisciplinary scale.

OSI has been designed to work on this issue collaboratively and deliberatively, in a way that involves input from all stakeholders in the scholarly communications community, and always with an acute awareness that the new world of scholarly communication being designed needs to be accepted by the research community and be of benefit to this community, needs to work in every country, institution and field of study, and needs to be reliable and effective over the long term.

OSI’s approach is also important insofar as preventing the scholarly communication solution space from fracturing, or at least pausing this fracturing long enough to make sure we carefully consider the consequences of our reform actions. This fracturing has implications for the progress of science, for the economic development that is so closely tied to research, and to global equity and opportunity. It also has implications for the issue space connected to open. Issues such as peer review and impact factors, for instance, also need to be solved, and solving them requires coordinated, global action. Enacting a separate peace with “one-size-fits-all” solutions will short-circuit any real and sustainable solutions on these connected issues that need to be developed.

There aren’t any “culprits” in this equation—just a number of one-off initiatives that try to solve only one part of the scholarly publishing puzzle from just one perspective and for one region. OSI is trying to walk a fine line between appreciating the creativity and enthusiasm of these efforts, while also counseling that they aren’t going to achieve global buy-in (and they haven’t) without a broader set of stakeholders at the table, and that we need to work together on solutions that work for everyone everywhere. We’re also trying to discover missing information in this debate, find common ground between approaches, help develop new and innovative approaches, and more, all of which is necessary and important, and which can only be accomplished through cooperation.


With common, global action, we can realize the full potential of open and solve all of the connected issues in this space, from affordability to impact factors to embargoes, peer review, predatory publishing, and more. Here’s what the next 15 years can look like by working together:

  • PICK THE LOW HANGING FRUIT (5 years from now): Work together on common ground solutions to the easiest and most pressing issues. Doing so will build a record of success, build confidence in our potential, and attract more institutions to this approach.
  • TACKLE THE TOUGH ISSUES (10 years from now): Replace the impact factor, improve promotion & tenure systems, and raise the bar (significantly) for data inclusion and interoperability and repository function.
  • OPEN RENAISSANCE (+15 years): Universal open is achieved, including archives and data. Integrated repositories and standardized data create new fields of research based on connecting the dots. Research spending efficiency improves, and discovery accelerates.

And after 15 years, what does this full potential look like?

  • Open is clearly defined and supported
  • Open is the standard output format
  • Open solutions are robust, inclusive, broad, scalable and sustainable
  • Almost all knowledge is discoverable
  • The global access gap is nonexistent
  • Solutions for the humanities are built-in
  • Connected issues are resolved
  • Incentives are aligned so scholars embrace open because they want to
  • Open is simple and clear so scholars know what it means and why they should do it
  • Predatory publishing is defeated so it no longer threatens knowledge integrity
  • Standards and global guidelines are clear for all journals, which helps the marketplace
  • The marketplace remains competitive so open products remain cutting edge
  • Repositories are integrated, not just connected
  • Data standardization is widespread and robust.

And all of this leads to an “Open Renaissance” in science where:

  • Many kinds of improvement happen to research, including less bias and better transparency.
  • The research ecosystem grows exponentially more powerful (with more data, more connections, and more apps), which further catalyzes innovation and improvements in research. New fields and directions emerge based on “connecting the dots” (thanks to data and repositories), funding efficiency improves, and discovery accelerates.
  • The social impacts of research surpass today (including improved literacy, public engagement, and public policy impact).
  • Knowledge becomes more of a global public good, and society reaps the benefits.


OSI has received about $379,000 of funding to date. In aggregate, this support has been reasonably evenly distributed between foundations, publishers, UNESCO and participants (in the form of conference registration fees). An important goal of OSI has been to avoid becoming “lopsided” in our funding, not to avoid becoming biased (since OSI’s financial supporters contribute funding only and do not influence OSI’s agenda or findings, which is determined by OSI’s participants and leadership), but to avoid the appearance of bias.

Source 2016 2017 2018 2019
Doris Duke Charitable Foundation $0 $25,000 $0 $0
UNESCO $48,000 $25,000 $13,000 $0
Alfred P. Sloan Foundation $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $0
Elsevier $7,500 $20,000 $10,000 $5,000
PressForward Institute (via Sloan) $5,500 $0 $0 $0
Taylor & Francis (Informa) $0 $5,000 $0 $0
Nature Publishing Group (Macmillan) $5,000 $10,000 $10,000 $0
George Mason University $4,500 $0 $0 $0
Wiley $7,500 $10,000 $10,000 $0
Laura & John Arnold Foundation $5,000 $0 $0 $0
Sage Publications $5,000 $5,000 $0 $0
Copyright Clearance Center $2,000 $0 $0 $0
ResearchMedia $500 $0 $0 $0
Emerald Publishing Ltd. $0 $0 $0 $1,000
Research Consulting Ltd. $0 $0 $0 $1,000
Delta Think $0 $0 $0 $500
Cactus Communications $0 $0 $0 $5,000
Conference fees (@ $500 ea) $58,000 $14,000 $0 $0
Individual donations $350 $300 $0 $375
Total income $168,850 $134,300 $63,000 $12,875
Sponsor type Funding ($) % of total OSI funding
Foundations $100,000 26.4%
Publishers $111,500 29.4%
Conference fees $72,000 19.0%
UNESCO $86,000 22.7%
Industry consultants $8,500 2.2%
Individual donors $1,025 0.3%
Total $379,025 100%

At the time of this report’s publishing (February 2020), no support is currently pending for 2020 or beyond. However, our goal is raise at least US$30,000 in 2020, hopefully much more—our minimum need for moving forward with our entire 2020 action plan is US$150,000. Getting to this total may require (as recommended by the 2019 summit group) breaking the goals of OSI into more bite-size “fundable components” so we can increase our chances of finding funding matches. For example, studies are one such component, so we may approach the National Science Foundation to help support these, one study at a time. Network building is another component, and this can be supported by conference participant fees; outreach work can be supported by UNESCO; and new tech products and solutions can be supported by publishers and universities. Our goal is to continue to build a diverse base of support for OSI’s diverse work, and also convince major government funders to support our work more robustly than now. This is a global challenge affecting science and society and requiring global solutions, not just a local or commercial challenge, so the most appropriate funders are truly at the international and global level.

Our funding goals for the next four years are as follows:

Income Year 1 (2020) Year 2 (2021) Year 3 (2022) Year 4 (2023)
Commercial publishers $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000
United Nations and other IGOs $50,000 $100,000 $250,000 $250,000
NSF and other government funders $100,000 $100,000 $0 $0
OSI conference fees (OSI participants) $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000
Scholarly societies (e.g., AAAS) $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000
Universities $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000
Foundations $150,000 $100,000 $50,000 $0
Total $550,000 $550,000 $550,000 $500,000


  • ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Glenn Hampson is executive director of the Science Communication Institute ( and program director and principal investigator for OSI.
  • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: Thank you to OSI participants for their input into this report.
  • CONFLICT STATEMENT: The author of this report is the program director and principal investigator for OSI, which receives funding from foundations, UNESCO, commercial publishers, and individual participants by way of conference fees. Funders, however, have no privileged input into OSI policy deliberations apart from being equal members of the OSI community. OSI has many voices contributing to documents such as this, and endeavors to maintain an inclusive and balanced perspective on scholarly communication issues.
  • >DISCLAIMER: In this report, the author has attempted to accurately represent the perspective and ideas of OSI participants, alumni and observers. However, it is possible that this attempt is incomplete and/or inaccurate. Any responsibility for errors, omissions and/or misrepresentations rests solely with the author. Also, the findings and recommendations expressed herein also do not necessarily reflect the opinions of contributors, or individual OSI participants, alumni, or observers, or any institutions, trustees, officers, or staff affiliated with these individuals.
  • CITATION: OSI. OSI 2019 Annual Report.