Over the course of 18 months, we are working on an ambitious new project to Redefine Publishing. Working with stakeholders from across scholarly communications, we aim to go beyond the traditional research article to address two systemic barriers to open science: a lack of recognition for all research outputs, and the economic costs that prevent broader participation.
The first of four stakeholder convenings brought together institutional leadership, early career researchers, and open science organizations to discuss open science and academic incentives, and took place last month in Washington D.C. We heard from different perspectives on the need for better recognition of all contributions to science which aren’t captured when research articles remain the central measure of academic merit – for research funding, and researcher career advancement. What emerged from our talks was consensus around the following three points:
**1.** **We need to change how science is evaluated.**
Participants shared concerns over the use of “false metrics”, such as journal prestige and publication counts, which constrain how scientists actually do their work.
**2.** **Researchers should be recognized for all research outputs and results.**
Traditional incentives, they explained, overlook many vital contributions to research, from datasets, code, and protocols to preregistrations.
**3.** **Contributions that are not research** **_outputs_** **also deserve recognition.**
Participants also pointed to the value of non-research outputs, such as engaging with society, and mentorship.ll
**So where do we start?**
To understand how we can design new solutions for open science, we have to consider the incentive systems which drive current ways of working. Recognition for diverse contributions to science is critical to driving systemic change in how research is funded, assessed, and rewarded.
It isn’t enough to create technology solutions or implement policies to improve open science behaviors, as we’ve seen in [our continued monitoring](https://theplosblog.plos.org/2024/10/open-science-indicators-how-might-we-start-thinking-about-the-leading-adopters-of-open-science-practices/) of open science practices. To accelerate the uptake of open science, researchers must be appropriately rewarded.
Attendees emphasized that credit must begin before an article is published and continue well beyond it. This approach could reward risk-taking, failures, mentorship, and peer review, as well as promote the re-use of scientific outputs.
**Moving from the article to a full “knowledge stack”**
The inspiration for our work is to shift beyond research articles to a new model for publishing. We invited participants to explore our initial concept for a “knowledge stack”. Under this model, we aim to publish, showcase, and credit all the key elements of research, incentivizing openness at every step and fostering a culture where sharing is not just encouraged but recognized and rewarded.
As a publisher, we can’t drive change on our own. But we can deliver a piece of the solution, and we’re committed to doing exactly that. To help validate what we have heard so far, we will continue to engage with funders, institutions, researchers, librarians, and infrastructure providers, in the coming months to refine and test the knowledge stack design. We want to hear from every part of the community, in every region that PLOS serves to understand your challenges, motivations, and aspirations. Your feedback can help shape our thinking and deliver something that truly works.
[Contact us](https://plos.org/redefining-publishing-get-more-news/) to take part in user panel research, get involved in stakeholder feedback, or stay up to date on our progress.