Dear Open Science enthusiasts,

The OSF recently announced that OSF Projects will be phased out as active collaboration and storage spaces, with new Projects no longer possible from 16 November 2026 and existing Projects becoming read-only from 19 February 2027. Read the OSF announcement.

This may require researchers who have used OSF as a central workspace to reconsider how they organize, preserve, and share their research materials.

For archiving and publishing research outputs, there are already well-established alternatives, and the most appropriate solution depends on the type of material and the discipline:

• Code: Use a version-control platform such as GitHub or LRZ GitLab for development, and create a release/archive in a repository such as Zenodo to obtain a persistent identifier and ensure long-term preservation.
• Research data: Where available, use a discipline-specific repository. Such repositories can provide specialized metadata fields and other features that improve the findability, accessibility and reuse of data within a particular research community. Find discipline-specific repositories on re3data. For instance, we recommend PsychArchives for data in psychology, EBRAINS or GIN for neuroscientific data, and BioImage Archive for biological images. If no suitable discipline-specific repository exists, a general-purpose repository such as Open Data LMU or Zenodo can be used. When selecting a repository, consider factors such as the metadata supported, long-term sustainability, geographical or institutional requirements, and the repository’s policies for sensitive data.
• Digital research materials such as documents, figures, protocols or other supporting materials: A general-purpose repository such as Zenodo provides long-term archiving and a persistent identifier.

One important aspect of OSF, however, is not fully replaced by these alternatives: OSF allowed researchers to keep different components of a project together in one workspace while the project was ongoing. Researchers who value this functionality may therefore want to distinguish between their working environment and their long-term repository.

For collaborative project work, researchers can continue to use OSF with appropriate add-ons where suitable, or use institutional services such as LRZ Sync and Share (which, however, is not certified for sensitive data). For sensitive research data, dedicated institutional storage solutions provided by LRZ may be more appropriate. Cloud services and add-ons should always be checked against institutional requirements for data protection before being used for research data.

In other words, there is not a single replacement for OSF. Your research workflow can combine different tools: one for working and collaborating, one for version control, and appropriate repositories for long-term preservation and sharing.

The LMU Open Science Center’s Research Cycle Handbook provides guidance on selecting repositories and planning for FAIR data sharing, including a section on Where to deposit. Researchers can use this as a starting point when reviewing their current workflows.

Research Cycle Handbook – Where to deposit

Because many researchers have used OSF precisely because it conveniently brought these functions together, this change may also be a good opportunity to review existing workflows and become familiar with the range of institutional and discipline-specific tools available. The LMU Open Science Center is happy to discuss possible solutions and support research groups in adapting their workflows, for instance through the 6-months research group training and consultation program: “Switch to Open” (contact us for entering the program in 2027).

Do you want to share this information with your colleagues? Here is a link to our news item on our website: https://www.osc.lmu.de/news/news/2026-09-29-osf-project-functionality.html

Best wishes

Malika

--

Dr. Malika Ihle (she/her) (pronunciation)

LMU Open Science Center Coordinator

https://www.osc.lmu.de