Where to launch the conversation
Source checks: 25 September 2026. These are candidate routes, not commitments, acceptances, endorsements, scheduled events or messages already sent. The goal is useful contribution from distinct domains, not the largest announcement count.
Recommended sequence
First: one canonical public prototype. Publish the approved introduction and versioned export on the existing research site, with a source repository or download, explicit contribution disclosure, examples and correction route. Archive a fixed release only after metadata and rights decisions are settled. Zenodo supports draft uploads, versioned records and software/GitHub integration; a reserved DOI is not registered until publication. Archive deposit does not constitute peer review. Upload guidance, software guidance.
Second: small domain clinics. Use the prepared domain cases to ask people to break a specific part of the model. Begin with contacts or venues the maintainer already has permission to approach; prepare organizer-facing pitches before any outreach. Each clinic should return a corrected example or a failure case, with facilitation and follow-up labor counted.
Third: scholarly artifacts shaped by those failures. A narrow formal paper, an implementation paper, a domain methods paper and a human study have different evidence requirements. Do not treat the entire dossier as one finished paper or split it into superficial venue-specific copies.
Audience-specific surfaces
| Community | First surface and concrete hook | Contribution requested | Later route and condition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Physics / astronomy | Group methods seminar or collaboration software meeting; follow a calibration change through two downstream claims | One missing dependency and one over-broad reliance decision | Focused arXiv methods paper after human authorship, topicality and category/endorsement check; software indexing after applicable eligibility is established |
| Biology | Reproducibility journal club or open-science mentoring clinic; distinguish reruns from independent batches | A case where available evidence cannot justify transport or replication | Domain methods paper with real validation; bioRxiv only if the resulting work fits its research/new-data scope |
| Economics / social science | Methods workshop or replication seminar; compare group-first allocation and selective completion | A strategic counterexample and a credible labor measure | Working-paper series, SSRN or institutional RePEc route after human manuscript and rights review; do not assume direct RePEc upload |
| Law | Legal informatics / technology clinic; versioned authority and conflicts between scientific and legal handling | Identify authority, recipient and deadline errors in a synthetic dispute | A legal methods paper via an appropriate institutional series or SSRN after legal scholar review and current policy checks |
| Cross-domain infrastructure | Open research community discussion; the smallest record that survives correction | An interoperability adapter and an unnecessary field | Standards discussion after multiple independently maintained implementations and explicit governance |
arXiv submission is moderated, topical and author-account based, not assured by an author’s existing scientific reputation. Current guidance may require endorsement for a new category. Submission guidance. RePEc is an aggregation ecosystem built around contributing archives and metadata; an institutional series is the natural first discussion, not a promise that this project can immediately post there. RePEc, archive tutorial.
Specific community modalities to investigate
RDA Reproducibility Interest Group
Its remit includes reproducibility workflows, data/code connections and related infrastructure. Membership participation and contributions to sessions are described on its group page. A short session proposal should ask participants to compare the MCRP card with their existing records; do not request endorsement of the whole framework. No current conference deadline or speaking slot has been confirmed. Group and participation.
FORCE11 Upstream
A new, original perspective about what changes should invalidate reliance could fit its open-research scope. Its guidelines reject advertorials/product demos and describe an editorial contact workflow. Therefore pitch an argument with counterexamples, not the project-launch post copied verbatim. Disclose AI contributions and ask editors about fit before any submission. The page also expects engagement with comments after publication; budget that labor. Author guidelines.
OLS and research-transparency teaching communities
OLS is a possible open-science community connection; its current site redirects from Open Life Science to OLS. This is an audience-fit suggestion, not a verified open call. Use the biology exercise as a teaching contribution and inspect the current program before proposing a session. BITSS’s Catalyst program explicitly connects people advancing transparency and reproducibility in quantitative social science; a methods clinic is a plausible conversation, not a guaranteed program benefit. OLS, BITSS Catalysts.
SSRN and software publication
SSRN supports early research dissemination, but posting requires the relevant distribution rights and adherence to current terms. Confirm its current AI/editorial rules for the actual submission; copyright-policy review alone does not establish eligibility. Do not invent acceptance by an economics or law network. Rights guidance. JOSS is a later software-paper possibility; check its research-software scope and maturity expectations against actual reuse and documentation, not merely passing toy tests. JOSS guidance.
Routes to exclude from the immediate plan
- OSF Preprints, including its community servers: current policy excludes mostly AI-generated content. This packet is not an eligible immediate upload. Policy.
- bioRxiv as a general manifesto/protocol deposit: screening guidance excludes opinion/commentary and step-by-step protocols, and centers research with new data. Reassess only for a genuinely appropriate later study. Screening.
- Broad automated mailing or social posting: no outreach has been authorized or performed in this task. Prepared copy is available for deliberate placement.
- Claiming a standards body or domain community has adopted MCRP: discussion, indexing, a DOI and attendance do not establish adoption.
A thirty-day launch sequence, relative to approval
| Phase | Deliverable | Success signal | Stop or narrow when |
|---|---|---|---|
| Day 0 | Approved page, versioned bundle, contribution route | Independent reader retrieves and runs the same release | Bytes or disclosure differ from approved candidate |
| Days 1–7 | Two small clinics in different domains | Participants produce understandable scoped records and concrete objections | Facilitation demand exceeds declared available hours |
| Days 8–14 | Public issue synthesis and corrected examples | Corrections link to affected versions and contributor credit is accurate | Sensitive disputes arrive without a capable operator |
| Days 15–21 | Third/fourth domain engagement and adapter attempt | At least one case challenges a central assumption | Only praise/downloads arrive; change the ask |
| Days 22–30 | Versioned response, narrowed next experiment | Clear decision on which mechanisms to keep, test or drop | Evidence supports the simple template just as well; simplify |
These are proposed milestones, not scheduled automations. Choose a realistic initial steward budget, e.g. four hours/week total, then reserve time for existing commitments before inviting more. The number is an example planning cap, not a service promise. Report offered participation, completion, refusal, total labor, new failure cases, repaired examples and unresolved issues. Downloads and stars measure attention; they do not measure correct reliance or community adoption.