Pick one research output or one teaching output. Answer a short set of concrete questions about what you actually did with it. We'll show you how open it is, where it loses points, and what you could change next to make it more useful for the greater good.
Openness isn't an ideology. It's a multiplier on usefulness — more readers, more reuse, more replication, more students reached, more return on the resources you make.
Your answers stay in your browser. Nothing is saved or sent. No analytics, no cookies, no storage, no network requests.
Have feedback or questions? Email us.
Visit CrimConsortium to learn about the network of member institutions advancing open criminology.
Visit CrimRxiv to browse open-access criminology research and post a free, open version of your own work.
Have feedback or questions? Email us.
This is a checklist, not a personality test. We ask about things you actually did with one specific output — where it lives, what license it carries, whether the underlying materials are shared, what it costs the next person to use it. Each answer is worth a fixed number of points. We add them up, divide by the most points you could have earned for an item of that type and status, and place you in one of five bands.
The five bands are Very Closed, Closed, Mixed, Open, and Very Open. We also describe a profile that summarizes the pattern of choices — for example, an output may be reachable but unreusable, or freely available but undocumented. The profile is meant to be diagnostic, not flattering or harsh.
The question set adapts to whether the output is research or teaching, whether it is finished, current, or planned, and what kind of output it is. We include only items that are observable — a file exists in a repository, a license is attached, students can reach a reading without paying — and avoid fuzzy self-rating.
The framework draws on widely used standards: the TOP Guidelines, Open Science Badges, FAIR data principles, preregistration, and widely used OER rubrics, adapted for criminology and criminal justice.
Treat your result as a starting point for one concrete change. The most valuable next step is usually small: deposit a postprint, attach a license, swap a paid reading for a free one, write a short README.