Openreview Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
994025250
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Newton Highlands, MA, USA
Phone
7816961287
Rating
52
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
General Science

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,628,726
Expenses
$22,168
Assets
$2,836,794
Liabilities
$2,659

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ANDREW MCCALLUM (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • ANDREW MCCALLUM (PRESIDENT)
  • ALINA BEGELZIMER (TREASURER)
  • NIHAR SHAH (SECRETARY)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

Our mission is to revolutionize scientific communication by providing innovative and extensible mechanisms for peer review, assessment, mentorship, discussion, and discovery.

What it reported doing in 2024

Openreview aims to promote openness in scientific communication, particularly the peer review process, by providing a flexible cloud-based web interface and underlying database api enabling the following: open peer review: we provide a configurable platform for peer review that generalizes over many subtle gradations of openness, allowing conference organizers, journals, and other "reviewing entities" to configure the specific policy of their choice. We intend to act as a testbed for different policies, to help scientific communities experiment with open scholarship while addressing legitimate concerns regarding confidentiality, attribution, and bias.open publishing: track submissions, coordinate the efforts of editors, reviewers and authors, and host sharded and distributed for speed and reliability.open access: free access to papers for all, free paper submissions. No fees.open discussion: hosting of accepted papers, with their reviews, comments. Continued discussion forum associated with the paper post acceptance. Publication venue chairs/editors can control structure of review/comment forms, read/write access, and its timing.open directory: collection of people, with conflict-of-interest information, including institutions and relations, such as co-authors, co-pis, co-workers, advisors/advisees, and family connections.open recommendations: models of scientific topics and expertise. Directory of people includes scientific expertise. Reviewer-paper matching for conferences with thousands of submissions, incorporating expertise, bidding, constraints, and reviewer balancing of various sorts. Paper recommendation to users.open api: we provide a simple rest api for accessing and uploading records of people, their groupings, document content, invitations and reviewing assignments, conflict-of-interest designations, and reviewing workflow patterns. You can then write scripts , all with a clear, robust model of read/write permissions. Track submissions, monitor review process, send customized bulk email messages, automate workflow actions.open source: we are committed to open source. The openreview web interface is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms under the terms of the gnu affero general public license v3. This software is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but without any warranty; without even the implied warranty of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. The source code is available on github.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
No current program activity. The filing reports no program spending for the current year.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 95
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 98.6%; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 127.97; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 7 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 18 of 18 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.

Key Signals

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

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.