πŸ“’ Last week, we published πΌπ‘šπ‘π‘Ÿπ‘œπ‘£π‘–π‘›π‘” π‘‘β„Žπ‘’ π‘„π‘’π‘Žπ‘™π‘–π‘‘π‘¦ π‘œπ‘“ 𝑂𝑝𝑒𝑛 𝐹𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 π‘€π‘’π‘‘π‘Žπ‘‘π‘Žπ‘‘π‘Ž: 𝐴 πΆπ‘Žπ‘™π‘™ π‘‘π‘œ π΄π‘π‘‘π‘–π‘œπ‘›

The response so far has been encouraging. Organizations, infrastructures, initiatives, and community members across the research information ecosystem have helped bring the discussion to new audiences and contexts.

Thank you to everyone who has shared, discussed, and amplified the work so far. 🌍

πŸ“£ Call to Action: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20190156
πŸ“˜ Background document: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20189998

Improving the Quality of Open Funding Metadata: A Call to Action

This Call to Action is the result of a roundtable workshop co-organized by the Barcelona Declaration Working Group on Funding Metadata and Crossref to discuss the challenges and opportunities for improving open funding metadata. Representatives from different stakeholder groups, including funders, publishers, and infrastructure providers, came together for a candid discussion about current barriers and opportunities for joint solutions. Improving the quality of open funding metadata requires improving how this information is captured, structured, and shared across the scholarly communication ecosystem.The Call to Action presents a concise summary outlining the importance of funding metadata, the key barriers affecting its quality and coverage, and a set of recommendations for stakeholders across the scholarly communication ecosystem: publishers, funders, institutions / libraries and infrastructure providers. Accompanying the Call to Action is a background document presenting more detailed insights, and proposed actions for improving open funding metadata,  available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2018999.

Zenodo

🧩 One of the key messages of the π˜Šπ‘Žπ˜­π‘™ π‘‘π˜° π˜ˆπ‘π˜΅π‘–π˜°π‘› is that open funding metadata is not a niche technical issue.

It is essential for transparency, accountability, and understanding how research funding contributes to research outputs and outcomes.

@HLdeJonge coordinator of the Working Group on Funding Metadata and co-author of the π˜Šπ‘Žπ˜­π‘™ π‘‘π˜° π˜ˆπ‘π˜΅π‘–π˜°π‘›, recently reflected on this in a Research Professional News opinion piece:
πŸ”—https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-europe-views-of-europe-2026-6-funding-metadata-is-no-niche-it-shows-what-research-spending-does/

🌱 The publication of the π˜Šπ‘Žπ˜­π‘™ π‘‘π˜° π˜ˆπ‘π˜΅π‘–π˜°π‘› is not an endpoint, but a starting point

We are already seeing opportunities to connect this work with broader discussions on research funding, funding policies, and responsible research assessment.

πŸ”Έ@DORAssessment https://sfdora.org/resource/practical-guide-for-rfos-informational-briefs/

πŸ”Έ ORFG https://www.orfg.org/news/2026-policy-analysis

We look forward to continuing these conversations with the community🀝

Practical Guide for RFOs Informational Briefs | DORA

β€œImplementing Responsible Research Assessment at RFOs: Informational Briefs from the Practical Guide” is a set of three tailored resources designed to support key audiences of the Guide to engage with RRA and catalyze action. These briefs are inspired by and complement the full Practical Guide to Implementing Responsible Research Assessment at Research Funding Organizations. The three…

DORA