 My name is Brian Nosek, thank you for coming to the 10-year celebration of the founding of the Center for Open Science. We're thrilled to be able to have this event and we're extra thrilled to be able to celebrate it with you. You are here because you are the change agents that have made COS possible to exist as an organization and more broadly you are the change makers that are working to advance that broader mission of increasing openness, integrity and reproducibility of research. So for us the primary objective of today is really just a day of thanks for the work that you do, for the collaboration that you have had in the past, in the present and ideally in the future on continuing to advance that mission and ideally that we can do even more of that together. So if we provide some information that provides some insight that will be great, if we provide a good time that will also be great but really our objective is can we foster a stronger community of connections among many many different people in this room playing many different roles in how is it that we can make the research culture be the best that it can be to accelerate and advance knowledge production, finding of treatments and solutions and application of science for the best that it can be for humanity. So thank you for your attendance. The title of our event is Starting and Scaling and Sustaining Improvements to Research Credibility and Trustworthiness and our plan for today is to tell as a story many open science events are about the what and the why. What is it that open science is? What are we trying to do and why should we be trying to do it? We'll do a little bit of that but we're mostly going to spend the day on the how. How is it that we can take these concepts of open science and really start to help reform the research culture so that they get embedded in everyday practice. So that the scholarly values that we idealize for how research operates are part of the daily practice of scholarship. And the open science movement is very diverse. There are many different communities, organizations, individuals that are playing roles in shaping how open science gets advanced and many of them come to it with different types of motivations for what they're trying to achieve in advancing open science. For some, a primary interest is open science for who gets to be involved, open science as inclusion. Can we democratize access to knowledge? Can we create better pathways for people who are affected by research to participate in that research process in some way? Can we diversify the nature of contribution and credit for that contribution? Others are focused on open science in terms of what is being done. Can we improve the transparency so that it's visible to an observer how it is that those claims were made, how those inferences were drawn? Can we increase the sharing of the contents of research so that more people can have access to it to be able to apply it? And more checking, evaluation, critique, assessment of that can be made rather than just relying on what was characterized in the paper, being able to see everything behind it. And then there are additional motivations for open science about how is it that we can do it better? How is it can we improve the accountability for researchers to the truth over the career advancement? How can we advance reproducibility and replicability of findings and prove rigor of research practices and actually facilitate a real self-corrective process? An ideal open science movement is inclusive to all of these motivations and identifies solutions that are mutually reinforcing so that that broad coalition of reformers who are trying to promote different parts of the open science movement can see in each other that those solutions are benefiting all of the motivations rather than creating conflicts between those motivations that may inhibit the advancement of the movement individually and the broader goal for improving science more generally. Those various motivations also connect to a variety of different things of what can be opened when we're thinking about open practice. Openness may refer to collaboration, things like improving participatory research of those that are affected by the research, improving crowdsource or team science so that more people can be involved and get credit for the involvement that they have. Openness may refer to the process of research, improving data management and sharing plans better planning from the outset, sharing of protocols and actual documentation of the protocols so that we know how the research gets done and those standards are clear, pre-registration of plans so you can clarify what was planned before, what was discovered after the fact. Clarity of output is a common theme and sharing of output in open science, making the papers more available, data, materials, codes, inventions. An emerging area in open science that's gotten a lot of interest especially in the last few years is promoting more openness and discussion and evaluation, making the peer review process more transparent, facilitating simpler corrective processes, improving synthesis, automated methods for aggregating evidence. And then finally the underlying infrastructure supporting science is an area for openness. The tool sets, if the content is public good then why isn't the infrastructure supporting that also a public good? The education material, the hardware produced, software, etc. For us that diversity of motivations combined with the diversity of things that one can do to be open demand a certain type of perspective on open science and that is life cycle open science. If we want to address those varieties of motivations and have it be comprehensively improving research practice, not just reflecting or making available research practice, we have to consider all of the different phases of the research life cycle because many of those different practices occur at different phases of the life cycle. And if we only treat open science as something that's done retrospectively, just share what you've done after the fact, then we can't actually start to do the efforts of improving rigor and planning and the things that have to happen earlier in the process so that those outputs themselves are more credible when they are shared. So what we will do today is really try to unpack what it is that life cycle open science is trying to achieve and how is it that the reform movement in general and some of the work that COS has done in particular has tried to help instill those things in the daily practice of research. Our first three chapters will do as short 15 minute presentations and then we'll have some Q&A and we'll try to structure the other chapters in similar ways of having a set of presentations and then plenty of time for questions and discussion. But to lead us off, Tim Arrington will present. Tim is a cell and molecular biologist, came to COS within a year of its founding to lead the reproducibility project in cancer biology and has since his portfolio has increased to cover all of the research efforts at COS as the senior director of research.