Apply Now * #### About the Program For details on the Open Scholarship Catalytic Awards Program’s aims, structure, and criteria, _see below_. * #### Round 2 Key Dates **Application Open Date:** October 1, 2025 **Application Deadline:** December 1, 2025, at 11:59 pm Pacific Time **Award Notification:** Mid-January, 2026 **Project Start Date (earliest):** February 16, 2026 **Project End Date (latest):** September 15, 2026 * #### Round 1 Award Recipients The Open Research Community Accelerator (ORCA) is pleased to announce the inaugural cohort of Open Scholarship Catalytic Awards Program recipients. The selected projects reflect a wide range of approaches to fostering more open, inclusive, and collaborative research environments. Awardees come from non-research intensive institutions, minority-serving Institutions, and other under-resourced colleges and universities. They span many disciplines, including biomedicine, engineering, environmental and agricultural sciences, the social sciences, and humanities. The awarded projects take a range of approaches to advancing open scholarship, open data, open source hardware and software, open education educational resources, and open access. These include training for students, early career researchers, and faculty; community science activities; symposia, infrastructure, resource, and curriculum development; hackathons; and awareness campaigns. To read more about Round 1 awardees, _click here_. #### About the Program The Open Research Community Accelerator (ORCA), with generous support from the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, is pleased to launch the Open Scholarship Catalytic Awards Program. The program aims to stimulate a culture of open scholarship (encompassing open science, open research, open data, and a range of other open-sharing practices that promote transparency, reproducibility, community engagement, and collaboration) at US-based traditionally under-resourced institutions (see Eligibility Criteria & Application Requirements section below). The awards will foster a diverse range of open scholarship projects and activities to help nurture a culture in which both research processes and outcomes are more inclusive, innovative, efficient, and trustworthy. **_What Are We Seeking?_** The Catalytic Awards Program supports future-looking activities that can demonstrably advance open scholarship. This includes accelerating cultural transformation, strengthening capacity, and showcasing innovative, proof-of-concept models or approaches that can serve as exemplars for broader adoption and impact. Some examples of eligible projects may be found here. **_What are We Offering?_** The Open Scholarship Catalytic Awards Program provides flexible funding ranging **from $5,000 to $15,000 USD per project**. This funding is intended to cover expenses related to community engagement, capacity-building, and networking, supporting a heterogeneous mix of projects that advance open scholarship. All funded projects must be executed by December 1st, 2025. ORCA will provide access to mentorship from seasoned practitioners, as well as guidance in project management and impact evaluation. The program also includes a community of practice model, fostering a supportive environment where award recipients can share experiences, network, and learn from one another. **_Eligibility Criteria & Application Requirements_ **Eligible applicants include students, postdocs, staff, and faculty members at accredited U.S.-based non-R1 and/or traditionally under-resourced institutions. This includes institutions defined by the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education as non-R1, federally-designated Minority Serving Institutions, and/or institutions with endowment value on a per-student basis below the national median. For the avoidance of doubt, a school must meet only one and not both of these criteria to be eligible. Applications must be submitted online through the ORCA portal. Each applicant is required to complete an application form detailing their project proposal, including objectives, expected impact, and a detailed budget. A copy of the application questions is available here, to assist with offline drafting. **_Application Support_ ** ORCA will host two informational webinars to guide potential applicants through the application process. Feel free to register using the links below. * October 16, 2025, at 2 pm ET, 1 pm CT, 11 am PT. * November 18, 2025, at noon ET, 11 am CT, 9 am PT. You can also look at the Frequently Asked Questions here. **_Selection Criteria_ ** The selection process comprises three rounds. First, the ORCA team will conduct an internal review to check proposals for alignment with program objectives and eligibility. Next, external reviewers will score proposals based on viability, community impact, and budget justification. Finally, a partial lottery system will be used to ensure fairness in selecting award recipients (see below). _Round 1: Internal Review_** **All submitted proposals will undergo an internal review conducted by the ORCA team to verify that the proposal aligns with the program’s goals and meets the eligibility criteria. Proposals will be assessed with a binary 'Yes' (moves to the next round) or 'No' (not considered for further review). The following aspects of the project will be assessed in this round: * **Alignment with Open Science Principles:** How well does the project advance open science, open research, or other open scholarship practices? * **Alignment with the Catalytic Award’s Mission** : Does it contribute to inclusive, transparent, and trustworthy research processes and outcomes? * **Eligibility Criteria** : Does the proposal comply with the eligibility requirements? _Round 2: External Review_** **Proposals that pass the criteria of the Round 1 review will proceed through an evaluation by external reviewers using the following criteria. This assessment will emphasize the project's viability, impact on the community, capacity building, and budget. Criteria | Definition ---|--- Clarity & Feasibility of Project Plan | Evaluates how clearly the project's objectives, methods, and timeline are defined. This also assesses the feasibility of achieving the proposed outcomes. Impact on Target Community & Engagement | Assesses the project's potential impact on its target community and how well the community is engaged throughout the project. Focuses on inclusivity and collaboration. Capacity Building | Assesses the project’s potential to build or enhance institutional/community capacity for open scholarship, offering sustainable skills, tools, or infrastructure. Budget Justification | Evaluates the clarity and alignment of the budget with the project’s objectives, ensuring that funds are used efficiently and effectively. Note that the target community refers to the group of people the project targets. It can be internal, like a group of researchers within a university or department, and external, like a non-academic community. External reviewers will rate each proposal on a scale of 1 to 4 for each criterion, as outlined below: Score | Description ---|--- 1 | Minimally addresses the criterion and/or provides vague, incomplete, or out-of-scope responses. 2 | Partially addresses the criterion, with some relevant content but noticeable gaps or weaknesses. 3 | Addresses most aspects of the criterion with clear and relevant responses. 4 | Fully addresses all aspects of the criterion with clarity, depth, and relevance. Proposals will receive a total score, and based on this, they will be segmented into quartiles for the final selection process. Our goal is to foster a selection process that aligns with the values of equity, inclusion, and transparency while identifying the most promising and impactful proposals. We are committed to ensuring a transparent and equitable review process. The external review committee will be composed of individuals with diverse backgrounds, expertise, and perspectives to minimize bias and promote inclusivity. We are in the process of finalizing the composition of the review committee and are dedicated to assembling a diverse group that reflects a wide range of experiences and identities. _Round 3: Partial Lottery_** **We will implement a partial lottery approach to strike a balance between merit-based selection and providing opportunities for a broader range of innovative projects. Proposals in the top 25% will be given priority for funding. Proposals rated in the 25th to 50th percentile will be entered into a lottery system. Projects from this group will be selected for funding until the funding goal for this round is met. Proposals in the bottom 50% will not be selected for funding. **_Key Dates_ ** For the second cohort, here is a project timeline: * **Application Open Date:** October 1, 2025 * **Application Deadline:** December 1, 2025, at 11:59 PM pacific time * **Award Notification:** Mid-January, 2026 * **Project Start Date (earliest):** February 16, 2026 * **Project End Date (latest):** September 15, 2026 ** _Applicable Policies_** 1. **Single Proposal Submission:** Applicants may submit only one proposal per round. 2. **Use of Funds:** All funds must be used directly for approved project activities and are subject to audit. 3. **Complementary Funding:** Awarded projects can secure additional external funds. Applicants must disclose supplementary funding during the application and final report stages; this will not influence the funding decision. 4. **Tax Implications:** ORCA is open to accommodating the awardee's needs. Funds can be received personally, but please note that this may have tax consequences. Applicants should consult a tax professional to get clarity on this matter and the implications in their particular case. For U.S. citizens, ORCA will be required to issue a 1099 tax form to the awardee. For non-U.S. citizens, ORCA may be required to withhold and report taxes, depending on the individual’s U.S. tax status, visa status, and any active tax treaties. Due to the complexity of U.S. tax requirements and reporting obligations, we encourage awardees to receive funds through their institution when possible. 5. **Overhead Costs** : If the awardee chooses to receive the funds in an institutional account, overhead costs will not be covered due to the project's short duration and the small award size. However, exceptions of up to 15% of the awarded amount may be granted in cases of demonstrated need. Please note that the total amount, including the solicited funds and any overhead, cannot exceed $15,000 USD. Overhead costs will not be covered if the awardee decides to receive the funds in a personal account. 6. **Engagement Activities:** Key project personnel are expected to participate in monthly engagement activities related to the community of practice to share project developments. 7. **Final Reporting:** Final reports are required and must detail the project's outcomes and impact. 8. **Credit and Acknowledgement:** Awardees must credit team members using comprehensive forms like the CREDiT taxonomy. The support of CZI and ORCA must be acknowledged in any public-facing outputs from the funded projects referring to the assigned award number. 9. **Open Licensing Compliance:** Projects must adhere to open licensing agreements, ensuring all outputs are publicly accessible and reusable. ORCA can provide advice on appropriate licensing options for funded projects' outputs. 10. **Confidentiality and Disclosure:** Application materials will be kept confidential except as necessary for evaluation or legal compliance. Funded proposals may be made publicly available; unfunded proposals will remain confidential. Summaries and metrics may be shared in aggregate form. **_Contact Information_ ** For further inquiries, please contact eunice@orcaopen.org. Apply Now Greg Tananbaum Previous Previous ## Modernizing Academic Appointment & Advancement Next Next ## Convening the Open Science Dynamic Convergence Workshop Open Research Community Accelerator®, subject to a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. ORCA is an operating project of Multiplier, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization (Tax ID 91-2166435). __

Record-breaking layoff reports, Amazon's mass firings, and a slump in entry level employment. Is AI behind it all?

Deezer and Ipsos unveil a unique study exploring perceptions around AI and music, conducted across 8 countries. Discover the surprising results!

Background This paper is a practice‑informed rapid review that maps the complex ethical challenges arising from the growing use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) tools across the research ...

The new deal might seem like a ‘win’ for artists at face value. But how it actually benefits them remains unclear.

We, the undersigned, express our concern about the University of Groningen’s increasing reliance on services from big tech companies

Authors and publishers, who are suing OpenAI, secured access to internal Slack messages and emails discussing the deletion of pirated books.

# Join the #RetainYourRights Movement! Check out the KR21-SPARC Europe flash cards below to learn more about the basics of rights retention and policymaking. **Want to help us unlock access to knowledge?** See the #RetainYourRights page for more information and an overview of all available resources. * * * **English** **Download: PDF Images: Cards #1 – #2 – #3 – #4** **Share: ____ Email ____ LinkedIn Bsky ** **Card #1 | Rights Retention & Secondary Publishing Rights** **Card #2 | Why Should Institutions Adopt Rights Retention Policies?** **Card #3 | What Should a Rights Retention Policy Include?** **Card #4 | The Role of Libraries in Rights Retention Policies** ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ * * *

Data are needed to study how social media spreads misinformation and influences elections, scientists say

American science is under attack. Recent cuts to funding and staffing of federal agencies, layoffs of scientists, and rescission of billions of dollars in grants are unprecedented in US history and th...

“Half-Open Door to Paradise” by Klearchos Kapoutsis This is a post by Syn Ong, AI Policy Researcher at Authors Alliance. Open access publishing has transformed the way research circulates. In principle, open access means that anyone, anywhere, can read and reuse scholarly work without financial, legal, or technical barriers. But in practice, many works labeled as “open” are quietly constrained by restrictions that limit how they can be used, especially by machines. Some of these restrictions are well known – “NonCommercial” and “NoDerivatives” terms that limit downstream uses. But they also increasingly include fine-print Terms of Service that bar uses like text and data mining (TDM) or AI training. These additional constraints dilute the value of openness and conflict with its foundational definitions. Creative Commons licenses have become the standard way to mark open works. But not all CC licenses support the same freedoms. Some publishers such as Taylor & Francis and MIT Press frequently apply CC BY-NC-ND licenses to books or articles described as “open.” This license restricts others from adapting the work or using it commercially without permission, even though in some cases limited reuse or transformation could qualify as fair use under copyright law. For instance, a CC BY-NC-ND article generally cannot be translated, remixed, or used to train a machine learning model without separate authorization, though some research-driven applications might nonetheless fall within fair use. A longstanding debate in the open-access community centers on exactly how “open” one must be to be “open access,” and many authors who choose NC/ND terms do so for compelling reasons – such as maintaining integrity of expression, avoiding commercial exploitation, or protecting sensitive material. Some NC/ND-licensed works still achieve substantial openness in access and impact. For example, MIT Press’s Direct to Open titles and UC Press’s Luminos series include CC BY-NC-ND books that are freely available online, widely cited, and used in classrooms, even if reuse is limited. These examples show that openness is not always all-or-nothing: access alone can meaningfully expand a work’s reach, though broader reuse remains constrained. According to the Budapest Open Access Initiative, open access literature should be free to “read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to… or use for any other lawful purpose.” Likewise, the Open Definition states that knowledge is open only if it can be “freely used, modified, and shared by anyone for any purpose.” Both frameworks make it clear that reusability is not a bonus feature of openness, it is essential. Works carrying ND or NC clauses may technically be open access under some publishers’ policies, but they fall short of these core principles. More recently, a growing number of publishers have started imposing restrictions not through licenses, but through website Terms of Service. In 2024 and 2025, both Wiley and Elsevier added sweeping notices in their website footers: “All rights are reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.” These restrictions apply even to articles released under permissive CC BY licenses. Similarly, the New England Journal of Medicine prohibits any use of its content for AI training in its legal terms, requiring explicit permission even when users have lawful access. MIT Press includes a “no AI training” clause within the downloadable PDFs of its open-access books, further muddying the waters. While such statements carry little legal force against users acting under open licenses or fair use, their presence conveys to users that the rights otherwise granted to them by CC licenses are actually much more limited. That raises a serious problem. Creative Commons licenses include a “no additional restrictions” clause: licensors may not impose legal terms or technical barriers that block uses permitted by the license. A publisher that releases an article under CC BY but prohibits AI training is in direct conflict with that condition. Creative Commons’ own policy makes this clear: if you want to add extra restrictions, you shouldn’t call your license a Creative Commons license at all. When publishers add these restrictions anyway, they not only breach community norms, they mislead authors and readers about what is actually allowed. Some publishers justify these restrictions as necessary protections against data scraping or AI misuse. But the result is that legitimate scholarly activities (like mining text to study linguistic trends or training models to identify bias in the literature) are chilled. The very same computational methods that help unlock insights from large bodies of research are often undermined by these restrictions, even though U.S. courts have recognized large-scale digitization and search/TDM as fair use in key cases. In an era of growing reliance on automated tools for research, these limitations are not just nuisances; they are obstacles to progress. Authors have a role to play in preventing this. When publishing open access, authors should check not just the license offered, but also the publisher’s Terms of Service and any embedded file restrictions. A work labeled as CC BY shouldn’t come with hidden clauses that say “no AI” or “no TDM.” Institutions and funders can help by encouraging the use of open repositories and pushing back against licensing or contractual practices that conflict with open norms. Transparency matters. If additional restrictions are imposed, they should be clearly disclosed, and ideally, avoided altogether. Open access was never meant to mean “read for free, but don’t touch.” Its promise was broader: to democratize knowledge and empower new uses of research, including uses we can’t predict. When publishers quietly reserve TDM and AI rights, or apply restrictive license terms by default, they close off precisely the kinds of innovation that openness was supposed to enable. Authors, readers, and research institutions should be wary of erecting such barriers. If a work is called open, it should be open in fact, not just in form. ### Share this: * Facebook * X * Bluesky * LinkedIn * * * * ### Discover more from Authors Alliance Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email. Type your email… Subscribe

"This fall, the CSU Libraries engaged in contract renewal negotiations for its subscription of SciFinder, a database aggregator provided by CAS, a division of the American Chemical Society."

Labor has ruled out changing copyright laws to give tech giants free rein to train artificial intelligence models on creative works, after the proposition was met with widespread backlash from artists...

Journals are considering doing identity checks to expose fake authors — but there are downsides.

If you don’t work at a university or have college-age kids, you may have missed the flurry of news stories and social media banter about AI adoption in higher ed, stories which have snowballed into th...

When a more restrictive open access licence is applied to a book, who gets to make decisions about usage that falls outside the open licence?