Promoting Transparent, Fair, and Inclusive Practices in Grantmaking: Lessons from the Open and Equitable Model Funding Program

The Open Research Funders Group (ORFG) has been instrumental in promoting open and equitable scholarship to enhance academic research’s transparency and accessibility. In 2020, the ORFG formed the Equity & Open Science Working Group, leading to the launch of the Open & Equitable Model Funding Program in 2021. This program aimed to refine grantmaking processes for broader inclusivity and equitable open scholarship practices. The program gathered a cohort of 11 funding organizations and focused on applying various proposed interventions within existing funding programs to improve grantmaking practices. The initiative highlighted the importance of targeted intervention selection and the need for delimited goal-setting, revealing challenges in implementation due to limited resources and the complexity of the processes involved. Participants valued the pilot for its structured approach and opportunities for shared learning despite some facing complexities in fully implementing the interventions. The ORFG’s future approach involves flexible intervention selection, effective resource management, and fostering a collaborative community, aiming for a more inclusive and practical application of open scholarship principles.

PILOT REPORT: OPEN AND EQUITABLE GRANTMAKING effectiveness and impact of grantmaking processes in the research funding community1 .

i. Why open & equitable scholarship?
Open scholarship 1 is a movement that aims to reduce barriers to participation and incentivize collaboration in the academic research enterprise by increasing transparency, reproducibility, and accessibility of research.It encompasses various aspects such as open access, open data, and open-source software (Fecher and Friesike 2014).By making research outputs and academic discussion more widely available, open scholarship can increase the indability, accessibility, re-use, and re-distribution of research products (McKiernan 2017), thereby accelerating discovery and better addressing the big challenges of our society (Besançon et al. 2021).
Moreover, open scholarship inherently calls for a more engaged and participatory role from the community, thereby cementing its ties with civic science (Smith et al. 2017).For instance, citizen science projects, which are a hallmark of community engagement in research, gain signi icantly from open data practices, as they rely on the collective contributions of non-professional scientists.An exemplary case is the Geo-Wiki project, an online platform for engaging the public in environmental monitoring, such as monitoring deforestation (Geo-Wiki 2010).Similarly, the open-source software movement within academic research not only fosters innovation and collaboration but also empowers communities by providing them with the tools and resources to tackle local issues.For example, the Public Lab community utilizes open-source tools to engage citizens in environmental monitoring and advocacy, turning lay people into active participants in scienti ic inquiry and environmental stewardship (Public Lab 2010).The ethos of open scholarship is deeply intertwined with the principles of civic science, as it champions inclusivity, collective knowledge advancement, and the direct application of scienti ic endeavors to societal betterment.
Nonetheless, pushing researchers toward speci ic sharing practices or models without considering the context of their resources can exacerbate existing inequities, such as by requesting authors to pay journal fees for open-access publications when the author institution may not have the means to do so.Furthermore, well-resourced scholars might easily contribute and bene it from existing open-access policies and infrastructures, enhancing their visibility and collaboration opportunities; however, without adequate support like training and incentives, under-resourced scholars could struggle to participate due to digital barriers and lack of institutional support, exacerbating the gap between the two groups in the academic community (Ross-Hellauer et al. 2022).Equity-related challenges can pose signi icant obstacles to participation (Appendix A).This is why it is essential to tailor open scholarship initiatives to be sensitive to the diverse needs and constraints of the global research community (Chan, Kirsop, and Arunachalam 2011).
Open and equitable scholarship serves as a means to enhance the academic enterprise, rather than being an end in itself.It enables a wide array of positive outcomes in the academic, philanthropic, and societal enterprise, such as inclusivity and collaboration, as well as increased transparency, reproducibility, and public engagement, thereby strengthening scienti ic inquiry's overall integrity and impact, among others observed (Appendix B).Addressing these barriers necessitates a collaborative approach by governments, educational institutions, funders, and the broader academic community to ensure that the principles of open scholarship are genuinely inclusive and accessible (Cole, Reichmann, and Ross-Hellauer 2023).

ii. Why a model funding program?
Research funding organizations, such as the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH), play a pivotal role in advancing knowledge, as they allocate a substantial amount of money through their funding programs.For example, the NSF distributed a sum of $9.9 billion USD in 2023, directly supporting around 352,000 researchers (NSF 2023).However, racial disparities PILOT REPORT: OPEN AND EQUITABLE GRANTMAKING in NSF funding rates and practices have been identi ied, with a tendency to support closed circles of applicant pools, which have been recognized as signi icant barriers to an equitable research landscape (Lauer and Roychowdhury 2021).For instance, it has been observed that the average external review scores of NSF proposals show a pattern of systematic differences based on the race of the Principal Investigator (PI) (Chen et al. 2022).This trend has been reported in various research funding organizations (Taffe and Gilpin 2021), indicating that ethnic disparities are prevalent.These racial gaps in funding have long-lasting effects that reinforce a cumulative advantage for white PIs in all ields.In response to these indings, many funding bodies have thus engaged in equity-related initiatives as a corrective measure to help democratize access to research opportunities and reduce systemic biases (Wellcome's Media Of ice 2022).This commitment to equity is an acknowledgment of funders' roles in shaping a more inclusive and diverse academic community.
Since its establishment in 2016, the Open Research Funders Group (ORFG) has cultivated a collaborative network of philanthropies to help foster research sharing policies and strategies, with an overall aim to enhance the accessibility, transparency, reproducibility, and reusability of scholarly outputs, including papers, data, and various other forms of research.Throughout numerous dialogues, members of the ORFG, as well as the wider funder network with which the ORFG engages, have acknowledged the need to integrate equity into the core of their open scholarship missions.They recognize that equity and open scholarship are mutually reinforcing elements; one cannot effectively function without the other.

II. Program development & characteristics
As an initial step, the ORFG joined forces with the Health Research Alliance (HRA) in 2020 to establish the Equity & Open Science Working Group (ORFG 2021a).This team -consisting of ORFG members and other scholars; scientists; open scholarship community leaders; diversity, equity, and inclusion experts; and community builders (ORFG 2021b)set out to reimagine open research, aiming for greater equity, especially for underrepresented communities.Through thorough discussions, the Working Group determined that while endorsing and bolstering open scholarship practices within their current funding structures was essential, it was only part of the solution.They recognized that funders' grant-making capabilities were the most in luential tools at their disposal to promote a more balanced and open research landscape.Therefore, the Working Group's objective evolved to encompass not only the end products of funded studies, but also the entire grant-making process.
Grant-making is the process of distributing inancial support to individuals, non-pro its, educational institutions, or other organizations by various entities such as foundations, governmental agencies, corporations, or charitable trusts.This inancial support is usually provided to fund speci ic projects that align with the grant maker's objectives and mission.Grant-making practices typically follow a life cycle that includes program design, dissemination of funding opportunities, submission of proposals, review and selection of proposals, allocation of funds, reporting, and creation of an alumni network.This article focuses on the grant-making practices of research funders.

i. Development of the interventions
The program was launched in 2021, with a foundational commitment to incorporating community input right from the beginning.In a collaborative spirit, the ORFG worked alongside the community to co-create targeted interventions and develop comprehensive primers, serving as detailed implementation guides for each initiative.
The ORFG proactively engaged with the academic community to re ine these interventions.It hosted open community calls, which attracted around ifty participants from ive countries -the UK, US, Netherlands, Mexico, and Argentina.In addition to these interactive sessions, signi icant input was received asynchronously, allowing for a broader range of contributions from those unable to attend the live discussions.Among the contributors were scholars, funding program managers, and leaders of open projects from various sectors, such as research funding organizations, universities, and advocacy groups.The participants signi icantly collaborated to provide feedback, exchange experiences, and suggest ideas to improve targeted interventions, present results, and enhance mechanisms for participation.This critical exercise allowed for a deep dive into the challenges and obstacles faced, particularly from traditionally marginalized contexts, to engaging in open scholarship practices.
Through this extensive community engagement, the ORFG gathered valuable input and identi ied and classi ied a comprehensive list of barriers to engaging in open scholarship practices from an equity perspective (Appendix C).Identifying these barriers was crucial for re ining the interventions to address the speci ic challenges identi ied through community feedback and collaboration.
The ORFG also analyzed and logically structured these interventions to align them with the grantmaking life cycle stages for operational clarity and ease of implementation.These stages included program development; program dissemination; application mechanics; application review; strategies during the award, evaluation metrics, and outputs; and the engagement of program alumni and networks.
The inal playbook included a total of 32 in number, which were publicly unveiled in July 2022, marking a signi icant milestone in this journey (ORFG 2021c).The ORFG envisioned that the interventions would be implemented by research funding organizations toward advancing equity in the distribution of grant funding.
ii. Assembly of the funder cohort After publicly posting the playbook of interventions, the ORFG began to recruit members from both the ORFG and the HRA to engage in a pilot program designed to turn them into practice.The ORFG sought program of icers or executive-level staff willing to select and apply an appropriate subset of these interventions to at least one of their funding programs for at least one funding cycle, with an expectation to share their insights and experiences with the broader funder cohort.A varied group of eleven funding organizations committed to participate in this initiative (ORFG 2021b).Subsequently, the cohort commenced their meetings in 2022, engaging in a rigorous and collaborative process for approximately 14 months.The program culminated in the fall of 2023 with exit interviews, during which recent developments such as the OSTP memo were discussed, alongside potential alignments that could further enhance the impact of our initiatives.

III. Pilot implementation & analysis i. Pro ile of the funder cohort
The composition of the funder cohort was heterogeneous in terms of organizational size, funding capacity, and reach.Speci ically, 30% of the organizations were classi ied as small, with a workforce under twenty employees, 45% were considered medium-sized, with a staff count between twenty-one and 100, and the remaining 25% were large organizations, employing over 100 individuals.Financially, the cohort's annual grants ranged widely, from $5 million USD to as much as $560 million USD, and their endowments spanned from $200 million USD to $12 billion USD.Geographically, their funding efforts were distributed, with two funding programs focusing on regional initiatives, six on national projects within the US, and four extending their support to international endeavors.
Additionally, the composition of the funding group re lected support for a broad array of research disciplines: 8% dedicated to the humanities, 16% to the ield of education, 25% to mathematics and physical sciences, and 50% to biomedical research.

ii. Pro ile of participants
To participate in the pilot program, each organization had to assemble a team to represent them throughout the program.One prerequisite was that each participating organization had to involve at least one senior-level individual who oversaw a funding program.The idea behind this was that these individuals have more in luence over who receives the funding and can offer perspectives that other individuals might not have the authority to offer.Each organization had autonomy in selecting the rest of their team and in selecting how many team members there were.This lexibility enabled the participants to choose support staff that aligned with their operational needs, which ensured that each organization could tailor the recommendations according to their distinct situations.
With these selection criteria in mind, each participating organization included representation by more than three staff members on average.Among this representation, 15% held executive-level positions (e.g.President, Vice President, or C-suite roles), 40% were at the senior level (e.g. senior program of icer or the equivalent), and 45% held mid-level positions (e.g. program associate or similar).Importantly, all participating organizations had the approval for participation from their leadership, ensuring that support for the initiative was anchored at the highest level.This widespread organizational support was crucial for each participating group's robust engagement and meaningful contributions.

iii. Program operations & logistics
The ORFG launched the cohort in April 2021, presenting cohort members with the entire set of potential interventions they could choose to adopt in their funding programs.Members were empowered to select the interventions they found most applicable and bene icial for their operations and missions, with the liberty to bypass those they considered less pertinent or not feasible to implement at the time.
The cohort's monthly meetings were structured in two distinct parts.Initially, the irst segment spanning seven sessions was dedicated to thoroughly examining each intervention, clustered around the seven distinct phases of the grant-making lifecycle (detailed in section 2.1 above).These discussions aimed to deepen participants' understanding of each intervention, as well as to nurture a community of practice in which members felt comfortable sharing their experiences and challenges.
Participants initiated the implementation of interventions at the outset of the pilot.It took them nearly eight months post-launch to share preliminary outcomes with their cohort peers, as this period was necessary for them to extensively explore and understand, internally and externally, the impact of the changes they were trying to make.The cohort members shared real-world feedback and evidence gathered from their practical application.This candid approach fostered a collaborative environment for re lection and collective learning.
During the program, the cohort members received continuous support from the ORFG, for example by contacting the ORFG for further guidance and assistance in implementing their selected recommendations.The ORFG provided customized templates for each funder's speci ic situation to make the implementation process more ef icient.Furthermore, the ORFG acted as a liaison, connecting funders with experienced professionals to address particular queries and facilitate knowledge sharing and exchange of experiences.The ORFG focused on providing practical, concrete examples and best practices to guide cohort members.
Funders retained the lexibility to adjust their choices as needed, allowing them to withdraw certain interventions they had initially chosen or to expand their selection by incorporating more recommendations as their implementation process evolved.This adaptable framework was designed to accommodate the evolving needs and insights of the funders as they worked towards integrating the interventions into their funding programs.Providing lexibility to the funders not only helped in minimizing attrition rates within the program but also underscored the valuable insight that a variety of strategies can be employed to foster open and equitable scholarship.

iv. Interventions implemented
At the outset of the program, the ORFG surveyed participating funding organizations to determine which of the thirty-two recommended interventions they had already independently implemented within their programs.It was observed that, on average, participating organizations already had eight of the thirty-two suggested interventions in place, with thirty-one of the thirty-two interventions being employed by at least one organization.This inding indicates that the organizations were, to some extent, aligned with the ORFG's recommendations from the beginning, even before joining the program.This also increased con idence in the process through which ORFG arrived at its list of interventions (Appendix C), as well as the practicality of implementation from the perspective of a funding organization.Among the interventions most commonly implemented by the participating organizations prior to joining the program (Appendix D) were: • Publicly share information on awarded projects • Consider lexible payment schedules to suit the needs of speci ic awardees During the program, the cohort members therefore focused on both enhancing their existing interventions by expanding their scope and depth (Appendix D), as well as initiating the implementation of their new selections (Appendix E).On average, each cohort member worked on re ining or implementing around fourteen interventions in total.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, certain proposed interventions were not adopted by any cohort participants.This was not necessarily due to the perception that these interventions were unimportant; rather, they were often considered more challenging to implement, requiring more time and resources than the organizations may have been able to commit to during the pilot phase.In this list we have: • Receive applications, and process them in languages other than English

i. Usefulness of the pilot
At the conclusion of the pilot, the ORFG surveyed cohort members to gather insights.Upon evaluation of their experience, 18% of the participants rated their participation in the pilot as "extremely helpful" and 82% rated it as "very helpful."This was based on a scale that included "extremely helpful," "very helpful," "slightly helpful," and "not at all helpful." When the ORFG inquired about the most signi icant bene its derived from participating in the pilot, participants highlighted several key advantages, including the value of learning from the experiences of others (33.3%), the resources shared (28.6%), the individual guidance and personalized support provided by the ORFG team (23.8%), and the bene it of committing to this work by tying it to speci ic deliverables and deadlines (14.3%).

ii. Challenges and insights gained
The ORFG also surveyed cohort members to gather insights on the lessons they learned, the main challenges encountered, and their overall experience in the program.The exit survey included a question to gauge participants' perceptions of the pilot outcomes against their initial expectations.They were offered three response options: "exceeded expectations," "met expectations," and "fell short." The feedback was divided; around half of the respondents (58%) felt that the pilot "met expectations," while the other half (42%) believed it "fell short" of their expectations.
For those participants who reported that the pilot "met expectations," several reasons were cited for this positive assessment: • The interventions were well-de ined and achievable, providing clear and feasible goals for the organizations to aim for.In the survey, the ORFG also inquired about any unexpected learnings the organizations encountered while implementing their chosen set of interventions.The responses revealed that the most common unexpected insight was underestimating the time (40%) and resources (20%) required to enact these changes.Additionally, there were reports of resistance encountered both within the organizations from staff and board members (30%) and from external sources, primarily external reviewers or review committees (10%).
Survey responses indicated a unanimous desire among the participating organizations to sustain the initiatives started during the pilot.A majority, 58% of the cohort members, planned to extend the reach of their interventions, applying them to more funding programs within their organizations.One foundation expressed an ambition to extend their impact further by assisting other foundations in undertaking similar work.The remaining 42% of participants intended to expand their suite of interventions, implementing a greater number within the same funding program that was involved in the pilot.This commitment re lects a robust endorsement of the pilot's objectives and an eagerness to further integrate its recommendations into their operational frameworks.
iii.Roadmap for future implementations While pilot participants reported gleaning useful insight from participation in the program, we are planning several strategic adjustments to further enhance the success of future cohorts.These adjustments will be aimed at optimizing participant experiences and the program's overall outcomes: • Expectation management: Manage expectations by setting realistic goals and being transparent about the potential limitations of the pilot's impact within the given timeframe.As ORFG charts the course for future iterations of the program, this roadmap is not just a plan, but a commitment to evolve, guided by the voices and experiences of those who participate.It represents an iterative process of learning and adaptation, with each step informed by the one before it.The ORFG will continue on this journey with the understanding that the path to inclusive, equitable, and open scholarship is a shared one, made richer and more rewarding by the diversity of its participants.

VI. Appendices
Appendix A: Potential barriers to participation in open scholarship, identi ied from an equity perspective.

Bias and Discrimination
Systemic biases can affect which research is supported, whose work is published, and who gets credit for scienti ic contributions.This can lead to the underrepresentation of certain groups in open scholarship initiatives.

Cultural
Different cultures have different approaches to sharing information, and there may be mistrust or misunderstanding of the intentions behind open scholarship.Moreover, certain cultures may restrict the sharing of knowledge that is considered traditional or sacred.

Economic
Access to open scholarly outputs often requires internet access and the use of computers or other devices, which can be expensive.Additionally, while open scholarship is often freely accessible, participating actively in it can come with costs that are prohibitive for some, especially those from low-income countries or underfunded institutions.For instance, pushing scholars towards certain open-access publishing business models, contributing data, or attending conferences can present economic challenges.

Educational
A certain level of guidance and training is required to engage actively with academic research.Those without this background may struggle to participate fully in open scholarship initiatives.

Infrastructure
Even if researchers are willing to participate, they may work in institutions that lack the infrastructure or support systems necessary for engaging with open scholarship, such as institutional repositories or access to open-source software.

Language
Much of the scienti ic literature is published in English, which can be a barrier for those who do not speak the language.This can limit both the consumption of open scholarly outputs and the contribution to them.

Legal and Policy
Intellectual property laws, data protection regulations, and institutional policies can limit the sharing of data and indings, making it dif icult for researchers to participate fully in open scholarship.

Network and Collaboration
Established researchers often have more opportunities to build networks and collaborate.Newcomers or those from marginalized groups may not have the same opportunities, which can limit their ability to engage with the open scholarship community.
Technological Not all regions have the same level of technological advancement or infrastructure.This can hinder participation in digital open scholarship platforms and limit access to online resources.

Recognition and Incentive Structures
The current academic system often rewards traditional publication and grant metrics over open scholarship, which can disincentivize researchers, especially underrepresented and early career scholars, from participating in open scholarship practices.

Resource Allocation
There can be an uneven distribution of resources within the academic community, where well-funded and established academics from prestigious institutions have more capacity to participate in open scholarship than their less well-resourced and recognized counterparts.

Enhanced Collaboration
Encourages collaboration across disciplines and borders.This can accelerate discovery, as researchers can build upon each other's work more ef iciently.

Equity and Justice
Open scholarship can play a role in addressing historical inequities in the academic enterprise.By actively including underrepresented groups, open scholarship works towards correcting biases in research agendas, funding, and recognition.

Reproducibility and Accountability
With more eyes on research, academic work can be improved due to the increased scrutiny and peer review that comes from a larger and more diverse group of participants.

Innovation and Creativity
Diverse perspectives can lead to more innovative and creative solutions to complex problems.Inclusion in open scholarship means that unique insights from different cultural, geographical, and socioeconomic backgrounds can contribute to the advancement of knowledge.

Global Challenges
Many of the challenges faced today, such as climate change, health pandemics, and sustainability, are global in nature.Addressing them effectively requires the involvement and cooperation of a global community of researchers and actors.

Public Engagement and Trust
Engaging a broader audience can enhance public understanding of research and trust in academic processes and indings, which is crucial for public support of evidence-based policy-making and informed public debate.

Reduction of Duplication
When diverse voices participate openly, it reduces the risk of duplication of efforts, as researchers can see what others are working on and can thus direct their efforts towards unexplored areas.
Source: Own elaboration with crowd-sourced information from the Equity in Open Science Working Group and further community engagement.

Appendix C:
Interventions within the Open & Equitable Model Funding Program.elevated in public and internal events and activities Invite alumni as reviewers, advisory board members, and in other roles to further develop and amplify the program Source: Own elaboration with information gathered during the operation of the Open & Equitable Model Funding Program.Interventions being implemented by participating funders prior to joining the program.Source: Own elaboration with information gathered during the operation of the Open & Equitable Model Funding Program.Interventions piloted by participating funding programs.Clearly articulate and communicate the links between and among open scholarship, equity, and inclusion with the organization's mission, and goals of the speci ic funding program to all actors within the program Source: Own elaboration with information gathered during the operation of the Open & Equitable Model Funding Program.
Appendix E: