The framework articulates and regulates how we work in partnership with other groups. We want the board and employees to be able to trust that each partnership is in line with the company`s values and that the management team will not put money above the mission. We want our community of users and supporters to know where to turn when they have questions about how we manage partnerships. We want our potential partners to understand what we expect. We want to earn and maintain a brand that prioritizes the search for truth as the overarching goal of science. We want to live up to the guiding principle that our sustainability efforts serve and support the mission, not the organization. We want to show that COS resources are used for the creation of public goods, not for contract work that provides competitive advantages or the secrecy of knowledge acquired by COS. It is inevitable that managing these risks and benefits will be an evolutionary practice shaped by experience. Therefore, we plan to improve this framework iteratively. We will use version control practices to make changes transparent over time. We plan to conduct an annual review to ensure that our publicly available content complies with the reporting obligations described below.
If you discover content that is missing from any of our reporting commitments, please send your feedback to support@cos.io. A solid understanding of the partnership`s purpose, expectations, structures and processes is essential to the effectiveness of the partnership. The framework also includes several key processes needed to move from collegial relationships to collaborative partnerships. By following these considerations, partnerships are more likely to lead to a collaborative culture of shared responsibility and accountability. The Center for Open Science (COS) works with nonprofit, governmental, and commercial organizations on projects that advance our mission to increase the transparency and reproducibility of scientific research. CHS is considered by some to be a leader in open science, and we have an obligation to provide our services fairly, with integrity and without partisan or ideological bias. At the same time, CHS is an advocate for rigour and evidence-based practice and decision-making. We receive partnership requests from organizations that have specific business models, conflicts of interest, or ideologies that could compromise scientific credibility, but are still important players in the scientific community.
Avoiding collaboration would undermine our mission to improve the entire scientific research process. However, blind and unprincipled collaboration could undermine our mission, for example by selecting partners based on revenue potential at the expense of mission alignment. The aim of this framework is to be transparent about how we make decisions about partnerships so that OSF users, staff, funders and the wider scientific community can know how we approach this element of our business. This framework is different from COS`s business plan. Specifically about the risks and ethical principles we use to make decisions: The annual Global Dialogue on the Multi-Stakeholder Partnership of Small Island Developing States (SIDS) took place on 10 July 2019 on the margins of the United Nations High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development. The event focused on effective partnerships to address gaps and priority areas of the Samoa Pathway. Before using this framework, it is important for partners to be aware that the Partnership Dialogue on SIDS is part of the Partnership Framework for SIDS, which was launched in 2016 as an extension of the SAMOA Road. It is planned to initiate new partnerships and continue existing partnerships through the exchange of best practices, challenges and achievements The framework for developing effective partnerships to prepare educators1 comprises three phases – establishment, development and maintenance. This framework shows the iterative and spiraling nature of partnership work.
Each phase reflects the fluidity necessary to develop authentic partnerships according to the unique characteristics of each partner, while adhering to a formalized structure to guide and support this work at all stages. Issue: COS (1) engages in community building and cultural change through guidance and collaborative collaboration with various stakeholders, (2) receives funding from individuals or organizations to support our work, and (3) offers certain products and services for a fee. In these cases, organizations and customers can enjoy the benefits of our services and, in some cases, the benefits of connecting with our brand for their own interests. How we choose to connect with others can be an ethical or philosophical challenge. In particular, potential partners may be partially or fully motivated for reasons that are independent or even contrary to COS`s mission. Even if potential partners do not have motivations that are at odds with COS`s mission, some of their policies and practices may be misaligned, which functionally leads to behaviors that run counter to COS`s mission and values. To say that we are impartial to the background, motivations and behaviours of our partners is an inadequate response. And refusing to work with such stakeholders would hinder our mission. Our community of users, funders, employees, stakeholders and supporters is driven by a desire to protect and promote scientific discoveries.
A fundamental principle for improving the integrity and credibility of evidence is to minimize bias motivated by ideological or other non-scientific ends. Therefore, we need a framework to evaluate partnerships and public communication on how we look at partners. .