Daniela Saderi on The Carpentries

RFP: Consultancy support for the Open Science Coalition

Wed, 03 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0000

Five leading open science organisations – The Carpentries, OLS, rOpenSci, pyOpenSci, and PREreview – are seeking an external consultant or group to facilitate several activities over the second half of 2026. Selected consultants will continue the organisational alignment and collaboration work previously announced in late 2025.

This work has three strands:

Facilitation: co-ordinating between the five groups during the grant-writing period, possibly coordinating the grantwriter and governance facilitator as well.
Governance: Creating ways of working between the five organisations (Pitches by invitation only). This would occur during the grant-writing period and possibly after.
Grantwriting: to lead-author our multi-funder grant pitch. We expect that this grant will be pitched to multiple funders to co-fund, and may involve more than one phase, e.g. discovery phase, pilot phase, and implementation phase, over multiple years.

We would be willing to consider pitches that cover multiple roles at once.

From Surviving to Thriving: A Convening to Reclaim and Sustain Open Science Communities

Mon, 15 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0000

Open science has transformed how research is conducted, shared, and reused. Yet the organisations at the heart of this transformation are often left vulnerable, underfunded, and disconnected from one another. To move from simply surviving to truly thriving, five leading open science organisations—The Carpentries, OLS, rOpenSci, pyOpenSci, and PREreview—are convening to chart a collective path forward. We are so grateful to The Navigation Fund for supporting this work, and invite our communities to review the full proposal online.

Carpentries Community Discussion on PREreview.org

Tue, 06 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0000

Scholarly peer review is broken

As defined by the Merriam-Webster English dictionary, peer review ¹is “a process by which something proposed (as for research or publication) is evaluated by a group of experts in the appropriate field”. But who gets to decide who is the “expert” and who isn’t? What are the criteria by which a proposed research article is selected or rejected? Different journals have different policies, but for the most part this process is opaque and done behind closed doors. This opaqueness might also be the root of a system whose players are disproportionately male (Helmer et al. 2017²; Lerback, American Geophysical Union, and Brooks Hanson 2016³; “Nature’s Sexism” 2012⁴; Fox, Sean Burns, and Meyer 2016⁵) and from North America or European countries (Chawla 2018⁶; Murray et al. 2018⁷). As part of a global push for transparency in scholarship, we at PREreview believe we need better ways to find, train, and engage researchers in peer review.