Why POSI? Background and motivation
- POSI is not an organization; POSI adopters are an informal group of those that have conducted self-assessments.
- The POSI principles are not rules or a checklist; organizations or groups can adopt or interpret them to fit many different circumstances.
- Our goal is for POSI self-assessments to be made publicly available and for interested communities to assess and monitor updates and progress.
First developed in a 2015 blog post, POSI offers a set of guidelines by which open scholarly infrastructure organisations and initiatives that support the research community can be run and sustained. This site, launched in 2020, codifies POSI as a community resource. Many open infrastructure organisations are at different stages of their journeys toward compliance with POSI. As more attention is paid to open infrastructure and the community discusses where POSI fits in, we needed a place where POSI can be more closely integrated into the community’s vision for open research.
Who adopts POSI?
Any organisation or initiative that provides open infrastructure for research and scholarly communications is welcome to do their own self-assessment against the Principles. The list of adopters is kept current by the adopting organisations and anyone can make a merge request to add their assessment or a discussion post. Take a look at the community discussion and, once you’ve publicly committed, one of the adopters will add you to the informal Slack chat and email list for adopters.
Do you have to meet all the commitments of POSI before you can adopt POSI?
No, POSI adoption can be aspirational. Many organisations begin their journey by aligning with the principles as a public commitment. POSI version 2.0 provides clearer guidelines on key governance, sustainability, and insurance, which organisations may work toward over time through staged self-assessment and community feedback. One powerful way to address the community’s legitimate skepticism, is to adopt a set of operating principles from the start. They can then help to shape foundational decisions about governance, funding, and technology strategies. We would also like to see existing organisations adopt POSI as a statement of intent. Doing so provides their community with a set of concrete commitments against which the organisation can be assessed.
Isn’t adopting POSI “Virtue Signalling?”
Yes. This shouldn’t be surprising or contentious. Our entire scholarly communication system is based on virtue signalling. But, of course, the term “virtue signalling” (with scare-quotes) is also sometimes used to insinuate that such signalling is disingenuous and designed primarily for marketing purposes. The principles were drafted with a built-in safeguard against disingenuous use. This means that it is possible for a party to adopt the principles as an aspirational statement, even when they do not yet meet all (or even any) of the requirements. The community can then monitor progress on the individual actions and detect when no progress is being made. Public adoption of the principles as an aspiration becomes a kind of forcing function.
What is meant by “stakeholder?” Does this just mean those who have made direct financial investments in the infrastructure organisation?
No. This narrow definition of “stakeholder” - focusing solely on those who have “invested” - is not widely held. In fact, common phrases like “stakeholder economy” and “stakeholder capitalism” describe the exact opposite: systems that don’t just focus on the “investor”, but which instead balance benefits to the investor with benefits to employees, the broader community, society, and the environment.
It is this latter, broader definition of “stakeholder” that is used in POSI. Stakeholders referenced in POSI reflect those that have a role in the global scholarly enterprise.
Does POSI exclude commercial organisations that provide open scholarly infrastructure?
No. In fact, one of the motivations in developing POSI was to set out some guidelines that could be incorporated into the procurement rules for assessing candidates for public/private partnerships. POSI offers clear ways to compare organisational governance, sustainability and insurance practices irrespective of the organisation’s tax status. These can also be used to evaluate the practices of community-run projects that may not be a legal entity or have formal governance documents.
We also think that wide adoption of these principles will actually help commercial organisations because it will set some clear ground-rules about how they can invest in creating services for the community in a way that respects the community’s interests and gains the community’s trust. This, in turn, minimises the financial risk of investing heavily in something that the community ultimately rejects due to concerns about enclosure, privacy, fee hikes, or other evils that are (sometimes unfairly) associated with a service just because it’s not run by a nonprofit. Equally, being a nonprofit does not make adherence to POSI automatic.
There are points made in POSI about open and available data. Why not refer to the FAIR principles?
First, POSI was developed before FAIR. But, more importantly, although FAIR is a relevant and useful list of principles related to scholarly outputs, it doesn’t speak to core requirements of infrastructure organisations. Nor, to many people’s surprise, does FAIR require openness.
Is adoption or endorsement of POSI only relevant to organisations actually running (or planning on running) scholarly infrastructure?
No. The entire scholarly community needs to take responsibility for ensuring that scholarly infrastructure remains open. POSI offers a way to articulate and assess this. We hope that POSI will be incorporated into institutional procurement processes, funder grant rules, and in community measurements of success.
Why not “open science infrastructure” instead of “open scholarly infrastructure?”
Because the research enterprise increasingly transcends disciplines. And we think this is to be encouraged.
In some parts of the world, science and technology are increasingly seen as being out-of-touch with the ethical, social, and cultural concerns of the communities within which they operate. We are concerned that infrastructures that focus exclusively on “science” will simply further entrench the “two cultures” divide and exacerbate this trend.
Why not “open research infrastructure” instead of “open scholarly infrastructure?”
Because scholarship involves more than “research.” It also includes “teaching”, for example. And we think POSI is as applicable to teaching infrastructures as to research infrastructures.
Do the POSI principles only apply to membership organisations?
No. The principles mostly use the word “member” in the sense of “member of the community.” Although the principles were inspired by the experiences of membership organisations and the examples mentioned (particularly around sustainability) reflect that, the principles make the point that it is important that we explore other models as well. The overall goals are to ensure that the organisation is responsive to members of the community and that it is not entirely dependent on inherently brittle short-term funding cycles. So, for example, one might explore how to normalise the use of long-term grants or partial endowments as the basis for funding.
How do you pronounce “POSI?”
In the past we’ve pronounced it a number of ways, but we’ve settled on “posy”- as in a small bouquet of flowers 💐
Can the rules in POSI be flexible?
Yes. POSI outlines principles, not rigid prescriptions. For example, while POSI v2.0 recommends establishing financial reserves, it does not impose a fixed duration or amount. Instead, it encourages policies appropriate to the organisation’s risk profile, size, and community needs.
How does POSI stay up to date?
Based on the active and practical experience and interpretation of the then-fifteen adopters, in 2023, the Principles have evolved based on real-world use by infrastructure adopters. This website shows the latest 2.0 version and has also archived the previous version 1.1, the original version 1.0 and the tracked changes between the versions. POSI version 2.0 was developed in 2024–2025 based on collective experiences of adopters and interested community stakeholders through public comment, with changes such as clearer criteria for sustainability and new governance commitments. Community dialogue and transparency remain central to future updates.
I want to use a more restrictive license, because I am worried about third-parties taking our data and re-selling it
While this is a possibility, we have rarely seen it happen. Furthermore, given that the original data is open and available for free, this is not an easy challenge. Generally speaking, using more restrictive licenses merely ends up frustrating well-intentioned downstream re-users and causes problems if a rescue operation is needed for the infrastructure. An example of problematic licensing might be using CC BY-SA on data that researchers might wish to combine with proprietary datasets. This is why we recommend the public domain declaration, CC0.
What does POSI mean by volunteer labour?
POSI v2.0 highlights the importance of recognising and incorporating volunteer labour into risk management. Organisations should quantify time contributed, acknowledge individuals, and consider these contributions when assessing organisational sustainability
How can organisations recognise and quantify volunteer labour?
Naming individuals who donate time to the organisation, either within the context of their employment or outside of it, on the website, as part of annual reporting, or in external systems such as ORCID, helps to highlight their contributions. Estimating the amount of time volunteers offer to the organisation and making this clear to the community can quantify the organisation’s reliance on volunteer labour and help members and the community understand the organisational and financial value of these volunteers.
What does “Time-Limited Funds are Used Only for Time-Limited Activities” mean in practice?
Time-limited funds (such as grants) should be used for clearly scoped, transitional, or capacity-building activities that support sustainability. POSI v2.0 recognises that such funds can enable the development of long-term sustainability models but should not be relied upon indefinitely to cover core operations.
What is a “Living Will” in the context of POSI?
A “living will” is a documented commitment to long-term stewardship. It includes how assets, services, staff, and governance would be responsibly transferred or wound down if the organisation ceases operations. POSI v2.0 introduces this to ensure trust and continuity, requiring defined criteria for acceptable successor organisations and alignment with POSI principles.
Why does POSI v2.0 include financial reserves?
POSI v2.0 introduces the requirement for financial reserves to support sustainability and resilience. These reserves are not just for wind-down scenarios (as covered in the Living Will), but also for weathering crises or supporting transitions. Organisations are encouraged to define reserve policies outlining purpose, levels, and governance.
What is meant by “transition planning” under POSI?
Transition planning refers to reducing over-dependence on key individuals. Organisations should have succession plans and documentation processes in place so that the infrastructure can continue in the event of leadership or staffing changes. POSI v2.0 recognises this as critical to long-term sustainability.
What’s the difference between “open” and “available” content in POSI?
POSI v2.0 makes a clear distinction: content, data, and code must be both openly licensed and practically accessible. That means not just publishing something under a license, but ensuring it is deposited in trusted archives, documented, and retrievable by the community or a successor organisation.
Why does POSI require prioritising open standards and interoperability?
To ensure resilience and reduce risk of lock-in. POSI v2.0 includes a new principle on interoperability, encouraging organisations to adopt open standards so their infrastructure can be replicated or integrated without relying on proprietary extensions or software.
How do I cite POSI?
Cite as POSI Adopters (2025), The Principles of Open Scholarly Infrastructure, retrieved [date], https://doi.org/10.14454/G8WV-VM65
More questions? Open a GitLab issue.