Center for Open Science Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
461496217
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
4342140523
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Professional Societies, Associations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$10,217,166
Expenses
$8,787,031
Assets
$16,271,909
Liabilities
$2,918,445

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

20 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BRIAN NOSEK (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • BRIAN NOSEK (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $262,600 total reported compensation
  • LISA CUEVAS SHAW (COO & MANAGING DIRECTOR): $208,029 total reported compensation
  • OSMAND CHRISTIAN (SR. DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING): $191,797 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The center for open science (cos) is dedicated to increasing openness, integrity, and reproducibility in scholarly research.

What it reported doing in 2024

Metascience: as metascience gains global traction, cos helped coordinate and accelerate the field through the launch of the metascience alliance. The alliance serves as a collaborative hub connecting researchers, funders, institutions, publishers, policymakers, infrastructure providers, and others working to strengthen the scientific ecosystem.the alliance focuses on: (i) building coalitions through convenings, networking events, and resources that connect communities across disciplines and sectors; (ii) strengthening the workforce by supporting new career pathways, offering cross-sector training, and launching programs for postdoctoral and early-career innovators; (iii) enabling matchmaking among researchers, funders, and infrastructure providers to design collaborative projects; and (iv) aligning and amplifying metascience efforts to reduce duplication and accelerate shared progress.cos also continued to advance its own metascience research through projects such as the open scholarship survey (oss) and pilot initiatives including benchmarking llm agents on scientific tasks, smart: scaling machine assessments of research trustworthiness, and the registered revisions project, which evaluates innovations in peer review.the open scholarship survey (oss) is a standardized, modular tool used to assess researcher attitudes, behaviors, and perceptions regarding open scholarship. It identifies key "gaps"-- between attitudes and behaviors, perceptions and norms, and barriers to adoption--that inform targeted interventions such as training and incentive reform. In 2024, cos deployed the third wave of this longitudinal study, tracking changes in researcher engagement with open science practices over time.across its infrastructure, policy, and metascience initiatives, cos continues to advance a more transparent, trustworthy, and collaborative research ecosystem.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 80% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 97% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 76
  • Transparency & Controls: 63
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 60
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 72.8%; rating input score 73
  • Program expense ratio: 84.6%; rating input score 85
  • Fundraising efficiency: $30.78 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 99%; rating input score 99; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 14%; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.85; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.18; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 18.1%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 10.2% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 10.5% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 18% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 72.8% of revenue deployed · 84.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $7.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $263K · 20 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 38 of 39 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 11 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 filed related-organization links
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 59/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 5/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.