Open Science and Materials Informatics: Accelerating Drug Discovery and Sustainable Materials Design

Abstract

This article explores the powerful convergence of the open science movement and materials informatics, a synergy that is fundamentally reshaping research and development in biomedicine and materials science. Aimed at researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals, it provides a comprehensive analysis of how open data, collaborative platforms, and FAIR principles are enabling AI-driven discovery. The article covers foundational concepts, practical methodologies for implementation, strategies to overcome common challenges like data sparsity and standardization, and a comparative validation of emerging business models and collaborative initiatives. By synthesizing insights from current initiatives and technologies, it serves as a strategic guide for leveraging open science to accelerate innovation, enhance reproducibility, and tackle pressing global challenges in healthcare and sustainability.

The Paradigm Shift: How Open Science is Redefining Materials Innovation

The field of materials science is undergoing a profound transformation, driven by the convergence of data-centric research methodologies and the foundational principles of open science. Materials informatics, which applies data analytics and machine learning to accelerate materials discovery and development, is emerging as a critical discipline for addressing global challenges in energy, sustainability, and healthcare [1] [2]. This paradigm shift moves materials research beyond traditional trial-and-error approaches, enabling the prediction of material properties and the identification of novel compounds through computational means [3].

Open science provides the essential framework for maximizing the impact of materials informatics by ensuring that research outputs—including data, code, and methodologies—are transparent, accessible, and reusable. As defined by the FOSTER Open Science initiative, open science represents "transparent and accessible knowledge that is shared and developed through collaborative networks" [4]. This philosophy is particularly vital in materials informatics, where the integration of diverse data sources and computational approaches necessitates unprecedented levels of collaboration and standardization.

This technical guide examines the core principles underpinning the convergence of open science and materials informatics, providing researchers with actionable frameworks for implementing these practices within their workflows. By embracing these principles, the materials research community can accelerate innovation, enhance reproducibility, and ultimately drive the development of next-generation materials for a sustainable future.

Core Open Science Principles in Materials Informatics

The effective integration of open science into materials informatics requires the implementation of several interconnected principles. These principles address the entire research lifecycle, from data generation to publication and collaboration.

FAIR Data Principles

The FAIR Data Principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) form the cornerstone of open data practices in materials informatics. Implementing these principles is particularly challenging in materials science due to the diversity of data types, including structural information, property measurements, processing conditions, and computational outputs [5].

• Findability: Materials data must be assigned persistent identifiers and rich metadata to enable discovery. Projects such as the OPTIMADE consortium (Open Databases Integration for Materials Design) have developed standardized APIs that provide unified access to multiple materials databases, significantly enhancing findability across resources [3].

• Accessibility: Data should be retrievable using standard protocols without unnecessary barriers. The proliferation of open-domain materials databases, such as the Materials Project, AFLOW, and Open Quantum Materials Database, demonstrates the growing commitment to accessibility within the community [3].

• Interoperability: Data must integrate with other datasets and workflows through shared formats and vocabularies. The OPTIMADE API specification represents a critical advancement here, providing a common interface for accessing curated materials data across multiple platforms [3].

• Reusability: Data should be sufficiently well-described to enable replication and combination in different contexts. This requires detailed metadata capturing experimental conditions, processing parameters, and measurement techniques [6].

Open Computational Workflows

Reproducible computational workflows are essential for advancing materials informatics. The pyiron workflow framework exemplifies this approach, providing an integrated environment for constructing reproducible simulation and data analysis pipelines that are both human-readable and machine-executable [6]. Such platforms enable researchers to document the complete materials design process, from initial calculations through final analysis, ensuring transparency and reproducibility.

The integration of open-source software with these workflows further enhances their utility. Community-driven projects like conda-forge for materials science software distribution facilitate the sharing and deployment of computational tools across different research environments [6].

Collaborative Infrastructure

Open science in materials informatics relies on infrastructure that supports collaboration across institutional and disciplinary boundaries. The OPTIMADE consortium exemplifies this principle, bringing together developers and maintainers of leading materials databases to create and maintain standardized APIs [3]. This collaborative approach has resulted in widespread adoption of the OPTIMADE specifications, providing scientists with unified access to a vast array of materials data.

Similarly, the development of foundation models for materials discovery benefits from collaborative data sharing. These models, which are trained on broad data and adapted to various downstream tasks, require significant volumes of high-quality data to capture the intricate dependencies that influence material properties [7].

Implementing Open Science: Methodologies and Workflows

Integrated Materials Informatics Workflow

The convergence of open science and materials informatics can be visualized as an iterative cycle that integrates data, computation, and collaboration. The following workflow diagram illustrates this process:

Open Materials Data Workflow illustrates the continuous cycle of open science in materials informatics, beginning with data extraction from open repositories and progressing through AI/ML modeling, validation, and open publication, ultimately feeding back through community collaboration.

Data Extraction and Curation Protocols

The implementation of open science principles begins with robust data extraction and curation. Modern approaches must handle the multimodal nature of materials information, which is embedded not only in text but also in tables, images, and molecular structures [7].

• Multimodal Data Extraction: Advanced data extraction pipelines combine traditional named entity recognition (NER) with computer vision approaches such as Vision Transformers and Graph Neural Networks to identify molecular structures from images in scientific documents [7]. Tools like Plot2Spectra demonstrate how specialized algorithms can extract data points from spectroscopy plots, enabling large-scale analysis of material properties [7].

• Structured Data Association: The application of large language models (LLMs) has improved the accuracy of property extraction and association from scientific literature. Schema-based extraction approaches enable the structured capture of materials properties and their associations with specific compounds [7].

• Standardized Data Representation: The use of community-developed representations such as SMILES (Simplified Molecular-Input Line-Entry System) and SELFIES for molecular structures facilitates data exchange and model development [7]. For inorganic solids, graph-based or primitive cell feature representations capture 3D structural information [7].

Open Machine Learning Frameworks

The application of machine learning in materials informatics benefits tremendously from open frameworks and models. Foundation models, pretrained on broad data and adaptable to specific tasks, are particularly promising for property prediction and materials discovery [7].

Table 1: Foundation Model Architectures for Materials Informatics

Model Type	Architecture	Primary Applications	Key Features
Encoder-only	BERT-based	Property prediction, materials classification	Generates meaningful representations of input data	[7]
Decoder-only	GPT-based	Molecular generation, synthesis planning	Generates new outputs token-by-token	[7]
Hybrid	Encoder-decoder	Inverse design, multi-task learning	Combines understanding and generation capabilities	[7]

The training of these models relies heavily on open chemical databases such as PubChem, ZINC, and ChEMBL, which provide large-scale structured information on materials [7]. However, challenges remain in data quality, with source documents often containing noisy, incomplete, or inconsistent information that can propagate errors into downstream models.

Open Databases and Integration Platforms

The materials informatics landscape features a growing ecosystem of open databases and integration platforms that implement FAIR principles. The OPTIMADE initiative has been particularly successful in addressing the historical fragmentation of materials databases [3].

Table 2: Major Open Materials Databases Supporting Materials Informatics

Database	Primary Focus	Data Content	Access Method
Materials Project	Inorganic materials	Crystal structures, calculated properties	OPTIMADE API, Web interface	[3]
AFLOW	Inorganic compounds	Crystal structures, thermodynamic properties	OPTIMADE API	[3]
Open Quantum Materials Database (OQMD)	Quantum materials	Phase stability, electronic structure	OPTIMADE API	[3]
Crystallography Open Database (COD)	Crystal structures	Experimental crystal structures	OPTIMADE API	[3]
Materials Cloud	Computational materials science	Simulation data, workflows	OPTIMADE API	[3]

These resources collectively enable high-throughput virtual screening of materials by providing access to properties of both existing and hypothetical compounds, significantly reducing reliance on traditional trial-and-error methods [3].

Research Reagent Solutions: Computational Tools

The implementation of open science in materials informatics requires a suite of computational tools and platforms that facilitate reproducible research.

Table 3: Essential Computational Tools for Open Materials Informatics

Tool/Platform	Function	Open Source	Key Capabilities
pyiron	Integrated workflow environment	Yes	Data management, simulation protocols, analysis	[6]
OPTIMADE API	Database interoperability	Yes	Unified access to multiple materials databases	[3]
Citrine Platform	Materials data management and AI	No (commercial)	Predictive modeling, data infrastructure	[8]
optimade-python-tools	API implementation	Yes	Reference implementation for Python servers	[3]

These tools collectively address the key challenges in materials informatics, including data quality and availability, integration of heterogeneous data sources, and development of interpretable models [8].

Case Studies and Applications

Accelerated COâ‚‚ Capture Material Discovery

A collaborative project between NTT DATA and Italian universities demonstrates the power of open science approaches in addressing climate change. This initiative combined high-performance computing (HPC) with machine learning models to accelerate the discovery of novel molecules for COâ‚‚ capture and conversion [2].

The workflow integrated:

• Generative AI to propose new molecular structures with optimized properties
• High-throughput screening using computational chemistry methods
• Quantum computing frameworks to enhance generative AI performance
• Expert validation by chemistry partners at universities

This approach identified promising molecules for COâ‚‚ catalysis through a systematic, data-driven framework, reducing the experimental timeline significantly compared to traditional methods [2]. The project highlights how open computational frameworks can accelerate materials discovery for critical sustainability challenges.

Development of Sustainable Materials

The Max Planck Institute for Sustainable Materials employs open science principles in its quest to develop sustainable materials. Their Materials Informatics group leverages the pyiron workflow framework to combine experiment, simulation, and machine learning in an integrated environment [6].

Key methodological developments include:

• Uncertainty Propagation for DFT: Quantifying uncertainties in Density Functional Theory calculations resulting from exchange functionals and finite basis sets
• Machine-Learned Interatomic Potentials (MLIP): Developing approximate interactions between atoms to enable larger-scale simulations
• Statistical Sampling of Chemical Space: Implementing Bayesian approaches to guide efficient sampling and materials discovery

This open, workflow-centric approach enables the reproducible exploration of sustainable material alternatives, with all methodologies documented in human-readable and machine-executable formats [6].

Future Directions and Challenges

The convergence of open science and materials informatics continues to evolve, with several emerging trends and persistent challenges shaping its trajectory.

Foundation models represent a particularly promising direction, with the potential to transform materials discovery through transferable representations learned from large datasets [7]. However, these models face significant challenges, including the dominance of 2D molecular representations that omit 3D conformational information, and the limited availability of large-scale 3D datasets comparable to those available for 2D structures [7].

The development of agentic interfaces to scientific workflow frameworks addresses another critical challenge: the difficulty of consistently generating trustworthy scientific workflows with large language models alone. By allowing LLMs to access and combine predefined, validated interfaces, researchers can maintain scientific rigor while leveraging the power of foundation models [6].

Persistent barriers to adoption include:

• Data Quality and Integration: Challenges related to metadata gaps, semantic ontologies, and data infrastructures, particularly for small datasets [5]
• Cultural and Incentive Structures: The need to align open science practices with career advancement metrics and traditional academic reward systems [4]
• Standardization and Interoperability: Despite progress through initiatives like OPTIMADE, achieving true interoperability across diverse materials data platforms remains challenging [3]

Addressing these challenges will require ongoing collaboration across disciplines and institutions, together with continued development of the open infrastructure that supports transparent, reproducible materials research.

The convergence of open science principles with materials informatics represents a paradigm shift in how materials are discovered, developed, and deployed. By embracing transparency, collaboration, and accessibility, the materials research community can accelerate innovation and address pressing global challenges in sustainability, energy, and healthcare.

The core principles outlined in this guide—FAIR data practices, reproducible computational workflows, and collaborative infrastructure—provide a framework for implementing open science in materials informatics. As the field continues to evolve, these principles will enable more efficient, reproducible, and impactful materials research, ultimately contributing to the development of a more sustainable and technologically advanced society.

The future of materials informatics lies in its openness. By building on the foundations described here, researchers can unlock the full potential of data-driven materials discovery while ensuring that the benefits of this transformation are shared broadly across the scientific community and society at large.

The field of materials science is undergoing a profound transformation, moving from traditionally closed, intuition-driven research models toward collaborative, data-intensive approaches. This paradigm shift represents a fundamental change in how scientific knowledge is created, shared, and applied. Materials informatics—the application of data-centric approaches and artificial intelligence (AI) to materials science research and development—stands at the forefront of this transition, serving as both a driver and beneficiary of evolving open science practices [1] [9]. The emerging approach systematically accumulates and analyzes data with AI technologies, transforming materials development from a process historically reliant on researcher experience and intuition into a more sustainable, efficient, and collaborative methodology [9].

This evolution occurs within a broader context of changing research paradigms. Where traditional "closed" science operated within isolated research groups with limited data sharing, the increasing complexity of modern scientific challenges—particularly in fields like materials science—has necessitated more open, collaborative approaches. The integration of AI and machine learning into the research lifecycle has further accelerated this transition, creating new demands for data sharing, model transparency, and interdisciplinary collaboration [10]. This article traces the historical evolution of open practices in science, with a specific focus on how materials informatics both exemplifies and drives this transformation, ultimately examining the current state of open science in an era increasingly dominated by AI-driven research.

The Historical Trajectory: From Closed Science to Collaborative Frameworks

The Traditional Materials Science Paradigm

Conventional materials development has historically relied heavily on the experience and intuition of researchers, a process that was often person-dependent, time-consuming, and costly [9]. This approach, while responsible for significant historical advances, suffered from several limitations:

• Fragmented Knowledge: Research findings were often siloed within specific research groups or institutions, limiting cumulative progress.
• Reproducibility Challenges: Without access to original data and detailed methodologies, verifying and building upon published research was difficult.
• Inefficient Resource Allocation: The trial-and-error nature of traditional approaches meant significant resources were expended on experimental dead ends.

This paradigm began shifting in the early 21st century with the emergence of materials informatics as a recognized discipline. As noted in a 2005 review, "Seeking structure-property relationships is an accepted paradigm in materials science, yet these relationships are often not linear, and the challenge is to seek patterns among multiple lengthscales and timescales" [11]. This recognition of complexity laid the groundwork for more collaborative, data-driven approaches.

Key Drivers for Open Science in Materials Research

Several interconnected factors have driven the transition toward open science practices in materials informatics:

• Data Intensity: AI and machine learning methods require large, diverse datasets for training effective models, creating inherent pressure toward data sharing and standardization [12].
• Computational Demands: The resources needed to train competitive scientific models are increasing rapidly, making collaboration and resource sharing increasingly necessary [10].
• Interdisciplinary Nature: Materials informatics inherently bridges disciplines—materials science, data science, chemistry, physics—requiring collaboration across traditional academic boundaries [10].
• Economic Efficiency: Open approaches reduce redundant research efforts and accelerate the translation of discoveries to applications, providing economic incentives for collaboration [1].

The Emergence of Open Science Frameworks

Government initiatives worldwide have played crucial roles in accelerating the adoption of open science practices in materials research. These programs have created infrastructure, established standards, and provided funding specifically for open, collaborative approaches.

Table 1: Major Government Initiatives Promoting Open Science in Materials Informatics

Country/Region	Initiative/Program Name	Key Focus Areas	Impact on Open Science
United States	Materials Genome Initiative (MGI)	Accelerating materials discovery using data and modeling	Directly supports material informatics tools and open databases [13]
European Union	Horizon Europe – Advanced Materials 2030 Initiative	Collaborative R&D focusing on digital tools and informatics integration	Backs projects integrating AI, materials modeling, and simulation [13]
Japan	MI2I (Materials Integration for Revolutionary Design System)	Integrated materials design using informatics	Government-funded project using informatics for innovation [13]
Germany	Fraunhofer Materials Data Space	Creating a structured data ecosystem for materials R&D	National project establishing data sharing infrastructure [13]
China	Made in China 2025 – Smart Materials Development	Intelligent materials design using big data and informatics	Prioritizes innovation in smart materials using AI & automation [13]
India	NM-ICPS (National Mission on Interdisciplinary Cyber-Physical Systems)	AI, data science, smart manufacturing	Funds AI-based material modeling and computational research [13]

The Current Landscape of Open Science in Materials Informatics

Foundational Elements of Modern Materials Informatics

Contemporary materials informatics represents the systematic application of data-centric approaches to materials science R&D. The field encompasses several core components that enable open, collaborative research:

• Materials Data Infrastructure: Structured and unstructured datasets containing chemical compositions, properties, and performance metrics of materials, along with tools for collecting, storing, managing, and sharing these datasets [13].
• Machine Learning & AI Algorithms: Models that analyze patterns in materials data to predict properties, discover new materials, and optimize formulations [13] [5].
• Simulation & Modeling Tools: Computational methods used to simulate material behavior and generate synthetic data, increasingly integrated with experimental approaches [13] [9].
• Materials Ontologies & Metadata Standards: Frameworks that ensure consistent labeling, classification, and interpretation of materials data across systems, enabling effective collaboration and data sharing [13].

The primary applications of materials informatics can be broadly categorized into "prediction" and "exploration." The prediction approach involves training machine learning models on existing datasets to forecast material properties, while the exploration approach uses techniques like Bayesian optimization to efficiently discover new materials with desired characteristics [9]. This conceptual framework enables more systematic and shareable research methodologies.

Key Workflows in Materials Informatics

The transformation from closed to collaborative research is exemplified in evolving workflows within materials informatics. The following diagram illustrates a standard machine learning workflow that enables reproducibility and collaboration:

Diagram 1: Standard Materials Informatics Workflow

This workflow demonstrates the iterative, data-driven nature of modern materials research. Particularly important is the feedback loop where knowledge extraction guides new experiments, creating a cumulative research process that benefits from shared data and methodologies [9] [12].

Essential Research Tools and Platforms

The shift to collaborative research has been enabled by the development of specialized tools, platforms, and data repositories that facilitate open science practices. These resources form the infrastructure supporting modern materials informatics.

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools in Materials Informatics

Tool Category	Specific Examples	Primary Function	Open Science Value
Data Repositories	Materials Project, Protein Data Bank	Provide structured access to materials data	Enable data sharing and reuse; Materials Project provides data for 154,000+ inorganic compounds [10]
ML/AI Libraries	Scikit-learn, Deep Tensor	Provide ready-to-use machine learning algorithms	Lower barrier to entry; standardize methodologies across research groups [12]
Simulation Tools	MLIPs (Machine Learning Interatomic Potentials)	Accelerate molecular dynamics simulations	Enable high-throughput screening; generate shareable simulation data [9]
Platforms & Tools	nanoHUB, GitHub repositories	Host reactive code notebooks and executables	Facilitate methodology sharing and collaboration [12]
Standardization Frameworks	FAIR Data Principles, Materials Ontologies	Ensure consistent data interpretation	Enable interoperability between different research systems [10]

These tools collectively address what the field identifies as "the nuts and bolts of ML" - the essential components required for effective, reproducible, and collaborative research [12]. These include: (1) quality materials data, either computational or experimental; (2) appropriate materials descriptors that effectively represent materials in a dataset; (3) data pre-processing techniques including standardization and normalization; (4) careful selection between supervised and unsupervised learning approaches based on the problem; (5) appropriate ML algorithms matched to data characteristics; and (6) rigorous training, validation, and testing methodologies [12].

Implementation Framework: Methodologies for Collaborative Research

Bayesian Optimization for Materials Exploration

One of the most significant methodologies enabling collaborative materials research is Bayesian optimization, which provides a systematic approach to materials exploration. This method is particularly valuable when data is scarce or when seeking materials with properties that surpass existing ones [9].

The following diagram illustrates the iterative Bayesian optimization process, which efficiently balances exploration of new possibilities with exploitation of existing knowledge:

Diagram 2: Bayesian Optimization Workflow

Experimental Protocol: Bayesian Optimization for Materials Discovery

• Initial Dataset Preparation:

  • Compile existing experimental or computational data containing material descriptors (composition, processing conditions) and corresponding property measurements
  • Ensure data quality through normalization and outlier detection
  • Divide data into training and validation sets (typically 80/20 split)

• Model Training Phase:

  • Select appropriate machine learning model (Gaussian Process Regression is commonly used for its uncertainty quantification capabilities)
  • Train model on initial dataset to learn relationship between material descriptors and target properties
  • Validate model performance using cross-validation techniques

• Acquisition Function Calculation:

  • Choose acquisition function based on research goals:
    • Expected Improvement (EI): Maximizes expected improvement over current best
    • Probability of Improvement (PI): Calculates probability of improvement over current best
    • Upper Confidence Bound (UCB): Balances mean prediction and uncertainty
  • Calculate acquisition function values across unexplored material space

• Next Experiment Selection:

  • Identify material or processing conditions with highest acquisition function value
  • This represents the optimal balance between exploring uncertain regions and exploiting promising areas

• Experimental Validation:

  • Synthesize or process selected material using standardized protocols
  • Measure target properties using characterized instrumentation
  • Document all experimental parameters for reproducibility

• Iterative Refinement:

  • Add new experimental results to training dataset
  • Retrain model with expanded dataset
  • Repeat process until target performance criteria are met or resources exhausted

This methodology dramatically reduces the number of experiments required for materials discovery by strategically selecting each subsequent experiment based on all accumulated knowledge [9]. The explicit uncertainty quantification in Bayesian approaches facilitates collaboration by making prediction confidence transparent.

Feature Engineering and Representation Learning

A critical technical challenge in collaborative materials informatics is representing chemical compounds and structures in formats suitable for machine learning. The methodology for feature engineering has evolved significantly, moving from manual descriptor design to automated representation learning.

Experimental Protocol: Feature Engineering for Materials Informatics

• Knowledge-Based Feature Engineering:

  • For organic molecules: calculate descriptors including molecular weight, number of substituents, topological indices
  • For inorganic materials: compute features based on constituent atomic properties (mean and variance of atomic radii, electronegativity)
  • Select feature sets based on domain knowledge and target properties
  • Normalize features to ensure comparable scaling across different descriptors

• Automated Feature Extraction with Neural Networks:

  • Represent molecules as graphs with atoms as nodes and bonds as edges
  • Implement Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) to automatically learn feature representations from molecular structure
  • Train GNNs on large datasets to capture complex structure-property relationships
  • Extract learned feature representations for use in other ML models

• Descriptor Validation:

  • Assess feature importance through methods like permutation importance or SHAP analysis
  • Evaluate model performance with different feature sets using cross-validation
  • Ensure features are generalizable across related material classes

The shift toward automated feature extraction using Graph Neural Networks has been particularly important for open science, as it reduces the dependency on domain-specific expert knowledge for feature design and enables more standardized representations across different material classes [9].

Challenges and Future Directions in Open Materials Science

The Tension Between Industry and Academia

The evolution toward open science faces significant challenges, particularly in the growing dominance of industry in AI research. Current data reveals a troubling trend: according to the Artificial Intelligence Index Report 2025, industry developed 55 notable AI models while academia released none [10]. This imbalance stems from industry's control over three critical research elements: computing power, large datasets, and highly skilled researchers.

The migration of AI talent to industry has accelerated dramatically. In 2011, AI PhD graduates in the United States entered industry (40.9%) and academia (41.6%) in roughly equal proportions. By 2022, however, 70.7% chose industry compared to only 20.0% entering academia [10]. This "brain drain" threatens the sustainability of open academic research, as highlighted by Fei-Fei Li's urgent appeal to US President Joe Biden for funding to prevent Silicon Valley from pricing academics out of AI research [10].

This tension creates fundamental conflicts between open science principles and commercial interests. As noted in recent analysis, "Industrial innovators may seek to erect barriers by controlling computing resources and datasets, closing off source code, and making models proprietary to maintain their competitive advantage" [10]. This closed strategy fundamentally conflicts with academia's commitment to public knowledge sharing, potentially slowing the pace of scientific discovery.

Implementing Open Science: Technical and Cultural Barriers

Several significant barriers impede the full realization of open science in materials informatics:

• High Implementation Costs: The financial burden of establishing materials informatics capabilities presents a substantial barrier, particularly for smaller institutions. Costs include software licenses, data acquisition and integration, computational infrastructure, and specialized personnel [13] [14].
• Data Quality and Standardization: Inconsistent data formats, incomplete metadata, and varying quality standards hinder effective data sharing and reuse. Progress depends on "modular, interoperable AI systems, standardised FAIR data, and cross-disciplinary collaboration" [5].
• Cultural Resistance: Traditional academic reward systems often prioritize individual achievement over collaboration, creating disincentives for data sharing and open collaboration.

Emerging Solutions and Future Framework

Despite these challenges, several promising developments are advancing open science in materials informatics:

• Open Science Platforms: Initiatives like the Materials Project platform in materials science have made quantum mechanics calculation datasets accessible for over 154,000 inorganic compounds, supporting global researchers in developing new materials [10].
• FAIR Data Principles: Implementation of Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable (FAIR) data principles is becoming more widespread, facilitating better data sharing practices [10].
• Hybrid AI Models: Approaches that combine traditional interpretable models with black-box AI methods are gaining traction, offering both performance and interpretability [5].
• Materials Informatics Education: Targeted educational initiatives, such as workshops by the Materials Research Society, are systematically training researchers in open science practices and AI/ML methodologies [12].

The future of open science in materials informatics will likely depend on developing new research ecosystems that balance commercial interests with public knowledge benefits. This will require sophisticated policy frameworks that "establish an AI resource base aggregating computing power, scientific datasets, pre-trained models, and software tools tailored to scientific research" [10]. Such infrastructure must be designed to maximize resource discoverability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability for both human researchers and automated systems.

The historical evolution from closed to collaborative practices in science represents a fundamental transformation in how knowledge is created and shared. In materials informatics, this shift has been particularly pronounced, driven by the field's inherent data intensity, computational demands, and interdisciplinary nature. The adoption of open science practices—enabled by standardized workflows, shared data repositories, and collaborative platforms—has dramatically accelerated materials discovery and development.

However, this evolution remains incomplete. The growing dominance of industry in AI research, coupled with persistent technical and cultural barriers, threatens to create new forms of scientific enclosure. Addressing these challenges will require coordinated efforts across academia, industry, and government to develop ecosystems that balance commercial innovation with public knowledge benefits. The future pace of materials discovery—with potential applications ranging from sustainable energy to personalized medicine—will depend significantly on how successfully we navigate this tension between open and closed research models.

As the field continues to evolve, the principles of open science—transparency, reproducibility, and collaboration—will become increasingly central to materials informatics. By embracing these principles while addressing implementation challenges, the research community can accelerate the discovery of materials needed to address pressing global challenges while fostering a more inclusive and efficient scientific ecosystem.

The pharmaceutical industry is grappling with a persistent and systemic research and development (R&D) productivity crisis that has profound implications for its structure and strategy. For over two decades, declining R&D productivity has forced leading companies to adapt their R&D models, influencing both internal capabilities and external innovation strategies [15]. This challenge is particularly pronounced for large pharmaceutical firms, where the scale and capital intensity of R&D activities make productivity a crucial determinant of long-term competitiveness and sustainability. The traditional R&D process remains slow and stage-gated, typically requiring large trials to establish meaningful impact, with failure rates for new drug candidates as high as 90% [16]. The financial implications are significant, with the biopharma industry facing a substantial loss of exclusivity—more than $300 billion in sales at risk through 2030 due to expiring patents on high-revenue products [16].

Simultaneously, materials science is undergoing its own transformation through materials informatics, which applies data-centric approaches to accelerate the discovery and development of new materials. The global materials informatics market is projected to grow from $208.41 million in 2025 to nearly $1,139.45 million by 2034, representing a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 20.80% [14]. This growth is fueled by the integration of artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning (ML), and big data analytics to overcome traditional trial-and-error methods that have long constrained materials innovation. The convergence of these fields through digital transformation presents a strategic opportunity to address the shared productivity challenges in both pharma and materials science R&D.

Quantitative Landscape: R&D Performance Metrics

Table 1: Pharmaceutical Industry R&D Productivity Metrics

Metric	Value	Source/Timeframe
Average drug candidate failure rate	Up to 90%	Deloitte 2025 Life Sciences Outlook [16]
Sales at risk from patent expiration	>$300 billion	Evaluate World Preview through 2030 [17]
Pharma shareholder returns (PwC Index)	7.6%	PwC analysis from 2018-Nov 2024 [18]
S&P 500 shareholder returns (comparison)	15%+	PwC analysis from 2018-Nov 2024 [18]
Value of AI in biopharma (potential)	Up to 11% of revenue	Deloitte analysis (next 5 years) [16]

Table 2: Materials Informatics Market and Application Metrics

Parameter	Value	Notes/Source
Global market size (2025)	$208.41 million	Precedence Research [14]
Projected market size (2034)	$1,139.45 million	Precedence Research [14]
Expected CAGR (2025-2034)	20.80%	Precedence Research [14]
Leading application sector	Chemical Industries	29.81% market share (2024) [14]
Fastest-growing application	Electronics & Semiconductor	Highest CAGR [14]
Leading technique	Statistical Analysis	46.28% market share (2024) [14]

Table 3: Workforce Productivity Challenges in R&D Organizations

Metric	Finding	Impact
Employees below productivity targets	58% of workers	ActivTrak data from 304,083 employees [19]
Average daily productivity gap	54 minutes per employee	Equivalent to 87% output for full salary [19]
Annual financial loss per 1,000 employees	$11.2 million	Based on untapped workforce capacity [19]

Key Driver 1: Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning

Artificial intelligence and machine learning are fundamentally transforming R&D approaches across both pharmaceuticals and materials science. In the pharmaceutical sector, AI investments over the next five years could generate up to 11% in value relative to revenue across functional areas, with some medtech companies potentially achieving cost savings of up to 12% of total revenue within two to three years [16]. Generative AI, in particular, is seen as having more transformative potential than previous digital innovations, with the capacity to reduce costs in R&D, streamline back-office operations, and boost individual productivity by embedding AI into existing workflows [16].

In materials informatics, AI and ML enable the acceleration of the "forward" direction of innovation (properties are realized for an input material) and facilitate the idealized "inverse" direction (materials are designed given desired properties) [1]. The advantages of employing advanced machine learning techniques in the R&D process include enhanced screening of candidates and scoping of research areas, reducing the number of experiments needed to develop a new material (and therefore time to market), and discovering new materials or relationships that might not be apparent through traditional methods [1]. The training data for these models can be derived from internal experimental data, computational simulations, and/or external data repositories, with enhanced laboratory informatics and high-throughput experimentation often playing integral roles in successful implementations.

Experimental Protocol: AI-Driven Materials Discovery

Objective: To accelerate the discovery and optimization of novel battery materials using AI-driven predictive modeling.

Materials and Methods:

• Data Collection: Compile terabyte-scale datasets from experimental results, computational simulations, and scientific literature on existing battery chemistries.
• Algorithm Selection: Implement a ensemble of machine learning approaches including deep tensor learning for pattern recognition and digital annealing for optimization problems.
• Model Training: Train predictive models on existing data to forecast material properties such as conductivity, stability, and degradation patterns.
• Virtual Screening: Use trained models to screen thousands of potential electrode material combinations in silico.
• Validation: Synthesize and experimentally test the most promising candidates identified through computational screening.

Expected Outcomes: A case study demonstrated that this approach can reduce discovery cycles from 4 years to under 18 months while lowering R&D costs by 30% through reduced trial-and-error experimentation [14].

AI-Driven Materials Discovery Workflow

Key Driver 2: Data Infrastructures and Open Science

The open science movement is creating transformative opportunities for addressing R&D productivity challenges through enhanced data sharing and collaboration. This is particularly relevant in materials informatics, where progress depends on modular, interoperable AI systems, standardized FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) data, and cross-disciplinary collaboration [5]. Addressing data quality and integration challenges will resolve issues related to metadata gaps, semantic ontologies, and data infrastructures, especially for small datasets, potentially unlocking transformative advances in fields like nanocomposites, metal-organic frameworks (MOFs), and adaptive materials [5].

The UNESCO-promoted open science movement aims to make scientific research and data more accessible, transparent, and collaborative. This approach is particularly valuable in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where researchers have developed open science policy guidelines to streamline data sharing while ensuring compliance with privacy laws [20]. These initiatives enable open data sharing in global collaborations, furthering knowledge and scientific progress while providing greater research opportunities. By following ethical data-sharing practices and fostering international collaboration, researchers, research assistants, technicians, and research support services can improve the impact of their research and contribute significantly to resolving global health challenges [20].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents for Data-Driven R&D

Table 4: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Data-Driven R&D

Tool/Category	Function	Application Examples
Statistical Analysis Software	Classical data-driven modeling and hypothesis testing	46.28% market share in materials informatics techniques [14]
Digital Annealer	Optimization and solving complex combinatorial problems	37.63% market share in materials informatics techniques [14]
Deep Tensor Networks	Pattern recognition in complex, high-dimensional data	Fastest-growing technique in materials informatics [14]
FAIR Data Repositories	Standardized storage and sharing of research data	Enables open science and collaborative research [5] [20]
Electronic Lab Notebooks (ELN)	Digital recording and management of experimental data	Integral to materials informatics data infrastructure [1]
Thioether-cyclized helix B peptide, CHBP	Thioether-cyclized helix B peptide, CHBP, MF:C56H93N19O22S, MW:1416.5 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
Infigratinib-d3	Infigratinib-d3|FGFR Inhibitor|For Research Use	Infigratinib-d3 is a deuterated FGFR inhibitor for research use only. Explore its applications in metabolic and pharmacokinetic studies. Not for human use.

Key Driver 3: Strategic Portfolio Management and Focus

Pharmaceutical companies are responding to productivity challenges by fundamentally rethinking their R&D and portfolio strategies. Our survey data indicates that 56% of biopharma executives and 50% of medtech executives acknowledge that their organizations need to rethink their R&D and product development strategies over the next 12 months [16]. Nearly 40% of all survey respondents emphasized the importance of improving R&D productivity to counter declining returns across the industry, with many companies exploring a variety of initiatives to enhance their market positions.

The strategic approach to portfolio management is evolving in response to these challenges. PwC outlines four strategic bets that pharmaceutical companies can consider to reshape their business models: Reinvent R&D, Focus to Win, Own the Consumer, and Deliver Solutions [18]. Companies adopting the "Focus to Win" model make bold decisions to exit markets, functions, and categories where they don't have differentiators that provide an economic advantage. They win through capital allocation linked to competitive advantage and are relentless about scaling in selected spots while deprioritizing, exiting, or outsourcing other areas [18]. This approach requires driving continuous process improvement, excelling at sourcing and partnership management, and building in-house functions that are core to differentiators.

Strategic Portfolio Management Approach

Key Driver 4: Advanced Computing and Simulation Technologies

The adoption of advanced computing technologies is accelerating R&D cycles in both pharmaceuticals and materials science. Digital twins, which serve as virtual replicas of patients, allow for early testing of new drug candidates. These simulations can help determine the potential effectiveness of therapies and speed up clinical development [16]. For instance, Sanofi uses digital twins to test novel drug candidates during the early phases of drug development, employing AI programs with improved predictive modeling to shorten R&D time from weeks to hours [16].

In materials science, high-throughput virtual screening (HTVS) and computational modeling are revolutionizing materials discovery. These approaches leverage the growing availability of computational power and sophisticated algorithms to screen thousands of potential materials in silico before committing to costly and time-consuming laboratory synthesis and testing. The major classes of projects in materials informatics include materials for a given application, discovery of new materials, and optimization of material processing parameters [1]. These approaches can significantly accelerate the "forward" direction of innovation, where material properties are predicted from input parameters, and gradually enable the more challenging "inverse" design, where materials are designed based on desired properties.

Experimental Protocol: Digital Twin Implementation for Clinical Development

Objective: To use digital twins as virtual replicas of patients for early testing of new drug candidates and accelerating clinical development.

Materials and Methods:

• Patient Data Aggregation: Collect and anonymize multimodal patient data including clinical, genomic, and patient-reported outcomes.
• Model Development: Create computational models that serve as virtual replicas of patient physiology and disease progression.
• In Silico Trials: Simulate drug effects on digital twin populations to predict efficacy and safety profiles.
• Optimization: Use simulation results to refine clinical trial designs, including patient selection criteria and dosage regimens.
• Validation: Compare digital twin predictions with actual clinical trial results to continuously improve model accuracy.

Expected Outcomes: Companies implementing digital twins have demonstrated significant reductions in early-phase drug development timelines, from weeks to hours for certain predictive modeling tasks, while improving the success rates of subsequent clinical trials [16].

Integration Framework: Connecting Open Science with Materials Informatics

The integration of open science principles with materials informatics represents a powerful framework for addressing the R&D productivity crisis. This integration leverages the strengths of both approaches: the collaborative, transparent nature of open science and the data-driven, computational power of materials informatics. Hybrid models that combine traditional computational approaches with AI/ML show excellent results in prediction, simulation, and optimization, offering both speed and interpretability [5]. Progress in this integrated approach depends on modular, interoperable AI systems, standardised FAIR data, and cross-disciplinary collaboration.

The implementation of open science policy guidelines in global research collaborations demonstrates the practical application of this framework. For example, the National Institutes of Health and Care Research (NIHR) Global Health Research Unit on Respiratory Health (RESPIRE 2) project, a global collaboration led by the University of Edinburgh and Universiti Malaya in partnership with seven LMICs and the UK, developed open science policy guidelines to streamline data sharing while ensuring compliance with privacy laws [20]. This approach enables open data sharing in RESPIRE, furthering knowledge and scientific progress and providing greater research opportunities while addressing the challenges of data security and confidentiality in resource-limited settings.

The R&D productivity crisis in pharma and materials science is being addressed through a multifaceted transformation driven by AI and machine learning, robust data infrastructures and open science, strategic portfolio management, and advanced computing technologies. The convergence of these fields presents significant opportunities for cross-pollination of ideas and methodologies. Pharmaceutical companies can leverage approaches from materials informatics to accelerate drug discovery and development, while materials scientists can adopt open science principles from biomedical research to enhance collaboration and data sharing.

The future outlook for both fields depends on continued investment in digital capabilities, commitment to open science principles, and development of standardized data infrastructures. For pharmaceutical companies, success will require moving beyond initial pilot projects to realize substantial value from adopting AI technologies at scale across the value chain [16]. For materials science, addressing challenges related to data quality, integration, and the high cost of implementation will be essential to unlock the full potential of materials informatics, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises [14]. By embracing these key drivers and fostering greater collaboration between these historically distinct fields, the broader research community can transform the R&D productivity crisis into an opportunity for accelerated innovation and improved human health.

The field of materials informatics is undergoing a profound transformation, driven by the convergence of increasing data volumes, sophisticated artificial intelligence (AI) methods, and a cultural shift toward collaborative science. This evolution is encapsulated by the open science movement, which posits that scientific knowledge progresses most rapidly when data, tools, and insights are shared freely and efficiently. Within this context, three core pillars have emerged as foundational to modern research: the adoption of FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) data principles, the proliferation of robust open-source software tools, and the strategic formation of pre-competitive consortia. These pillars are not isolated trends but are deeply interconnected, collectively enabling researchers to overcome individual limitations and accelerate the discovery and development of new materials, from high-energy-density batteries to targeted therapeutics. This guide examines the individual and synergistic roles of these pillars, providing researchers and drug development professionals with a technical framework for navigating and contributing to the open science ecosystem in materials informatics.

The FAIR Data Principles: A Framework for Reusability

Defining the FAIR Principles

The FAIR Guiding Principles, formally published in 2016, provide a structured framework to enhance the stewardship of digital assets, with an emphasis on machine-actionability to manage the increasing volume, complexity, and creation speed of data [21]. The core objectives of each principle are:

• Findable: The first step in data reuse is discovery. Data and metadata must be easy to find for both humans and computers. This is achieved through persistent identifiers and rich, machine-readable metadata that are indexed in searchable resources [21] [22].
• Accessible: Once found, users need to understand how data can be accessed. Data should be retrievable using standardized, open protocols, even if the data itself is restricted for privacy or intellectual property reasons [21] [22].
• Interoperable: Data must be ready to be integrated with other data and workflows. This requires the use of common data formats, standards, and controlled vocabularies or ontologies that give shared meaning to the data [21] [22].
• Reusable: The ultimate goal of FAIR is to optimize the future reuse of data. This demands that data are richly described with multiple, relevant attributes, have clear licensing, and include detailed provenance information about its origins and any processing steps [21] [22].

A critical clarification is that FAIR is not synonymous with "Open." Data can be fully FAIR yet access-restricted (e.g., for commercial or privacy reasons), and conversely, open data may lack the rich metadata and provenance to be truly reusable [22].

Implementing FAIR in Practice

Translating the high-level FAIR principles into practice requires specific actions and tools, as outlined in the table below.

Table 1: A Practical Checklist for Implementing FAIR Data Principles

FAIR Principle	Key Implementation Actions	Examples & Tools
Findable	Assign a Persistent Identifier (PID); Use rich, standardised metadata schemes.	Digital Object Identifier (DOI); Dublin Core; discipline-specific schemes via FAIRsharing [22].
Accessible	Deposit data in a trusted repository; Ensure metadata is always accessible.	General repositories: Zenodo, Harvard Dataverse; Discipline-specific: re3data.org, FAIRsharing [22].
Interoperable	Use open, community-accepted data formats; Employ controlled vocabularies and ontologies.	Open file formats (e.g., .csv, .cif); Community ontologies (e.g., Pistoia Alliance's Ontologies Mapping project) [22] [23].
Reusable	Create detailed documentation & provenance; Apply a clear, permissive data license.	README files with experimental context; Licenses like CC-0 or CC-BY for public data [22].

Multiple large-scale initiatives exemplify the adoption of FAIR in materials and drug development. The Materials Cloud platform provides tools for computational materials scientists to ensure reproducibility and FAIR sharing, including automated provenance tracking via the AiiDA informatics infrastructure [24]. Similarly, the Neurodata Without Borders (NWB) project has created a FAIR data standard and a growing software ecosystem for neurophysiology data, enabling the sharing and analysis of data from the NIH BRAIN Initiative [25]. In the pharmaceutical realm, the Pistoia Alliance's Ontologies Mapping project addresses interoperability by creating a thesaurus to cross-reference different controlled vocabularies, allowing researchers to integrate disparate datasets without losing semantic nuance [23].

Open-Source Tools: The Engine for Computational Research

Open-source tools are the practical engines that bring FAIR data to life, enabling the analysis, visualization, and prediction that drive modern materials informatics. These tools lower the barrier to entry for sophisticated data-driven research and foster a community of continuous improvement and shared best practices.

The following diagram illustrates a typical open-source-informed workflow in materials informatics, from data acquisition to insight generation.

Figure 1: An open-source-enabled workflow for materials informatics research.

Table 2: Essential Open-Source Tools for the Materials Informatics Researcher

Tool Name	Category	Primary Function	Key Features
AiiDA [24]	Workflow Management	Automated provenance tracking	Persists and shares complex computational workflows; Ensures reproducibility.
Pymatgen [26]	Core Library	Materials analysis & algorithm	Represents materials structures; Interfaces with electronic structure codes.
Matminer [26]	Featurization	Materials data visualization	Facilitates data retrieval, featurization, ML, and visualization.
DeepChem [26]	Machine Learning	Deep learning for molecules/materials	Supports PyTorch/TensorFlow; Focused on chem- and life-sciences.
Jupyter [26]	Development Environment	Interactive computing	De facto standard for interactive, web-based data science prototyping.
Crystal Toolkit [26]	Visualization	Interactive visualization	Interactive web app for visualizing materials science data.

Platforms like the Materials Cloud LEARN section aggregate tutorials, Jupyter notebooks, and virtual machines to train researchers in using these tools effectively, thereby building community capacity [24]. The Awesome Materials Informatics [26] list serves as a community-curated index of a holistic set of tools and best practices, further accelerating onboarding and collaboration.

Pre-Competitive Consortia: Collaborating to Solve Shared Challenges

The Concept and Models of Collaboration

Pre-competitive collaboration is a model where competing companies, often with academic partners, join forces to tackle common, foundational problems that are too large, inefficient, or risky for any single entity to address alone [23]. The core principle is that no single participant gains a direct competitive advantage from the shared output; instead, the entire industry sector moves forward, overcoming operational hurdles and lowering barriers to innovation [23]. These consortia can be classified based on their openness regarding participation and outputs, leading to several distinct models [27].

Table 3: Models of Pre-Competitive Collaboration Based on Participation and Outputs

Model	Participation	Output Access	Primary Goal	Example
Open-Source Initiatives [27]	Open	Open	Development of standards, tools, and knowledge.	Linux operating system.
Discovery-Enabling Consortia [27]	Restricted	Open	Generate & aggregate data at a scale that enables future innovation.	The Human Genome Project.
Public-Private Consortia [27]	Restricted	Open	Create new knowledge within a structured industry-academia framework.	The Innovative Medicines Initiative.
Industry Consortia [27] [28]	Restricted	Open or Restricted	Improve non-competitive aspects of R&D; develop common technology platforms.	SEMATECH (semiconductors).
Prizes [27]	Open	Restricted	Incentivize the development of a specific product or solution.	X PRIZE.

Benefits and Implementation in Materials and Pharma

The drive toward pre-competitive collaboration in pharmaceuticals and materials science is fueled by the recognition that major obstacles to accelerating R&D—such as evolving data formats, the need for interoperable standards, and the high cost of foundational tool development—are "simply too large or inefficient to attempt to tackle alone" [23]. The benefits of active participation are multifaceted:

• Shared Cost and Risk: The financial burden and technical risk of developing enabling platforms are distributed among all members [28] [23].
• Access to Broader Expertise: Collaborations bring new minds and perspectives to a problem, leading to more robust and widely applicable solutions than those developed in isolation [23].
• Accelerated Innovation: By providing a common foundation of data, standards, and tools, consortia allow members to focus their proprietary R&D on differentiated, downstream products, thereby speeding overall progress [28] [23].
• Enhanced Reputation and Relationships: The process of collaboration builds morale, opens communication channels, and enhances an organization's standing in the wider research community [23].

The following diagram outlines the strategic process for establishing and running a successful pre-competitive consortium.

Figure 2: The lifecycle and key success factors for a pre-competitive consortium.

Notable examples in action include PUNCH4NFDI, a German consortium in particle and nuclear physics building a federated FAIR science data platform [25], and the Materials Research Data Alliance (MaRDA), which is building a sustainable community to promote open and interoperable data in materials science [25]. A key challenge in the current landscape is "alliance fatigue," with a proliferation of groups competing for membership and funding. Initiatives like the Pistoia Alliance's "Map of Alliances" are emerging to bring clarity and efficiency to the collaboration ecosystem [23].

Synergistic Integration: Accelerating Discovery Through Interconnected Pillars

The true power of FAIR data, open-source tools, and pre-competitive consortia is revealed not when they operate in isolation, but when they integrate synergistically to create a virtuous cycle of innovation. This integration forms the backbone of the modern open science movement in materials informatics.

• Consortia produce FAIR data and open tools: Pre-competitive collaborations are a primary mechanism for generating the community-wide standards, ontologies, and shared datasets that embody FAIR principles. For instance, the ESCAPE project in Europe involves major astronomy and physics facilities working to make their data and software interoperable and open, directly contributing to the European Open Science Cloud (EOSC) [25]. Similarly, the FAIR for AI initiatives, such as those led by the DOE, aim to create commodity, generic tools for managing AI models and datasets that can then be specialized across different scientific fields [25].

• Open tools enable data to become FAIR: Tools like AiiDA from the Materials Cloud initiative are critical for implementing FAIR principles from the beginning of a research project. By automating provenance tracking during computation, they ensure that data is not only reusable but also reproducible, a level of rigor that is difficult to achieve by applying FAIR principles only after data collection is complete [24].

• FAIR data empowers consortia and tools: When data generated by consortia is FAIR, it dramatically increases the value and utility of that data for all members. It also creates a robust foundation upon which open-source tools can be built and validated. The Neurodata Without Borders (NWB) standard provides a clear example: by defining a FAIR data standard for neurophysiology, it has spurred the growth of a software ecosystem that allows researchers to share and build common analysis tools [25].

This synergistic relationship establishes a powerful flywheel effect. Collaborative consortia create the demand and frameworks for shared standards, which are implemented through open-source tools. These tools, in turn, make it easier for researchers to produce and use FAIR data, which attracts more participants to the consortia and incentivizes further investment in tool development. This cycle continuously elevates the entire field's capacity for efficient, reproducible, and accelerated discovery.

The paradigm for materials informatics and drug development is decisively shifting from isolated, proprietary efforts to a collaborative, open science model. This transition is structurally supported by the three core pillars of FAIR data, open-source tools, and pre-competitive consortia. Individually, each pillar addresses a critical weakness in traditional R&D: FAIR data ensures the longevity and reusability of research outputs; open-source tools provide the accessible, scalable infrastructure for analysis; and pre-competitive consortia offer a viable model for sharing the cost and burden of foundational work. Together, they create a synergistic ecosystem that accelerates the entire innovation lifecycle. For researchers and professionals, engaging with these pillars—by adopting FAIR practices, contributing to open-source projects, and participating in strategic consortia—is no longer merely an option but an essential strategy for maintaining relevance and driving impact in the rapidly evolving landscape of materials science and biomedical research.

Building the Engine: Open Data Infrastructures and AI-Driven Workflows

The open science movement is fundamentally reshaping the landscape of materials informatics research, promoting transparency, reproducibility, and collaborative acceleration. Central to this paradigm shift are open data repositories, which serve as communal vaults for scientific data. However, the true potential of these resources is only unlocked through the implementation of robust, standardized application programming interfaces (APIs) that ensure interoperability and machine actionability. This guide provides an in-depth examination of three pivotal resources: the OPTIMADE API standard, the Crystallography Open Database (COD), and PubChem. Each plays a distinct yet complementary role in the materials and chemistry data ecosystem. OPTIMADE offers a unified query language for disparate materials databases, the COD provides a community-curated collection of crystal structures, and PubChem serves as a comprehensive repository for chemical information. Framed within the broader context of open science, this whitepaper details their operational protocols, technical architectures, and practical applications, equipping researchers and drug development professionals with the knowledge to leverage these powerful tools for data-driven discovery.

Core Characteristics

The following table summarizes the fundamental characteristics of the three repositories, highlighting their primary focus, data licensing, and access models.

Table 1: Core Characteristics of OPTIMADE, COD, and PubChem

Feature	OPTIMADE	Crystallography Open Database (COD)	PubChem
Primary Focus	Universal API specification for materials database interoperability [29] [30]	Open-access collection of crystal structures [31] [32]	Open chemistry database of chemical substances and their biological activities [33]
Data License	(Varies by implementing database)	CC0 (Public Domain Dedication) [34]	Open Access [33]
Access Cost	Free	Free [34]	Free [33]
Governance	Consortium (Materials-Consortia) [29] [35]	Vilnius University - Biotechnology Institute [34]	National Institutes of Health (NIH) [33]
Primary Data Format	JSON:API [30]	Crystallographic Information File (CIF) [34] [32]	PubChem Standard Tags, various chemical structure formats [33]

Technical Specifications and Scale

This table contrasts the technical implementation, scale, and supported data types for each resource, providing a clear view of their capabilities and scope.

Table 2: Technical Specifications and Scale

Specification	OPTIMADE	Crystallography Open Database (COD)	PubChem
API Type	RESTful API adhering to JSON:API specification [30]	REST API available [34]	Web interface, programmatic services, and FTP [33]
Query Language	Custom filter language for materials data [30]	Textual and COD ID searches via web interface and plugins [31]	Search by name, formula, structure, and other identifiers [33]
Supported Data Types	Crystal structures and associated properties [36]	Small molecule and medium-sized unit cell crystal structures [32]	Small molecules, nucleotides, carbohydrates, lipids, peptides [33]
Scale (as of 2024)	25 databases, >22 million structures [36]	>520,000 entries [32]	Not specified in results; world's largest collection per provider [33]
Versioning	Semantic Versioning [30]	Supported [34]	Not supported [33]

In-Depth Repository Profiles

OPTIMADE: The Interoperability Standard

OPTIMADE (Open Databases Integration for Materials Design) is a consortium-driven initiative that has developed a universal API specification to make diverse materials databases interoperable [29]. Its core motivation is to overcome the fragmentation of materials data, where each database historically had its own specialized, often esoteric, API, making unified data retrieval difficult and necessitating significant maintenance effort for client software [30]. The OPTIMADE API is designed as a RESTful API with responses adhering to the JSON:API specification. It employs a sophisticated filter language that allows intuitive querying based on well-defined material properties, such as chemical_formula_reduced or elements [30]. A key feature is its use of Semantic Versioning to ensure stable and predictable evolution of the specification [30]. The consortium maintains a providers dashboard listing all implementing databases, which include major computational materials databases like AFLOW and the Materials Project [29] [30]. As of 2024, the API is supported by 22 providers offering over 22 million crystal structures, demonstrating significant adoption within the materials science community [36].

Crystallography Open Database (COD)

The Crystallography Open Database is an open-access, community-built repository of crystal structures [32]. Established in 2003, it has grown to over 520,000 entries as of 2024, containing published and unpublished structures of small molecules and small to medium-sized unit cell crystals [31] [32]. A defining feature of the COD is its use of the CC0 Public Domain Dedication license, which removes legal barriers to data reuse and facilitates integration into other databases and software [34]. The primary data format is the Crystallographic Information File (CIF), as defined by the International Union of Crystallography (IUCr) [32]. The COD is widely integrated into commercial and academic software for phase analysis and powder diffraction, such as tools from Bruker, Malvern Panalytical, and Rigaku, which distribute compiled, COD-derived search-match databases for their users [31]. This extensive integration makes it a foundational resource for experimental crystallography. The database also provides an SQL interface for advanced querying and offers structure previews using JSmol for visualization [31] [32].

PubChem

PubChem, maintained by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), is the world's largest collection of freely accessible chemical information [33]. It functions as a comprehensive resource for chemical data, aggregating information on chemical structures, identifiers, physical and chemical properties, biological activities, safety, toxicity, patents, and literature citations [33]. While its primary focus extends beyond solid-state materials, it is an indispensable tool for drug development professionals and chemists. PubChem mostly contains data on small molecules, but also includes larger molecules like nucleotides, carbohydrates, lipids, and peptides [33]. Access is provided through a user-friendly web interface as well as robust programmatic access services, allowing for automated data retrieval and integration into computational workflows [33]. Its role in the open science ecosystem is to provide a central, authoritative source for chemical data that bridges the gap between molecular structure and biological activity.

Experimental Protocols and Workflows

Protocol: Querying Multiple Databases via the OPTIMADE API

This protocol details the methodology for performing a unified query across multiple OPTIMADE-compliant databases to retrieve crystal structures of a specific material, such as SiOâ‚‚. This process exemplifies the power of standardization in materials informatics.

• Identify Base URLs: Obtain the base URLs of OPTIMADE API implementations from the official providers dashboard [29]. For example:

  • AFLOW: https://aflow.org/optimade/
  • Materials Project: https://optimade.materialsproject.org/
  • COD: https://www.crystallography.net/optimade/

• Construct the Query Filter: Use the OPTIMADE filter language to formulate the query. To find all structures with a reduced chemical formula of SiOâ‚‚, the filter string is: filter=chemical_formula_reduced="O2Si" [30]. The filter language supports a wide range of properties, including elements, nelements, lattice_vectors, and band_gap.

• Execute the HTTP Request: Send a GET request to the /v1/structures endpoint for each base URL, appending the filter. For instance, a full request to the Materials Project would look like: GET https://optimade.materialsproject.org/v1/structures?filter=chemical_formula_reduced="O2Si" [30]. The Accept header should be set to application/vnd.api+json.

• Handle the Response: The API returns a JSON:API-compliant response. A successful response (HTTP 200) will contain the requested structures in a standardized data array, with each entry containing attributes like lattice_vectors, cartesian_site_positions, and species [30].

• Parse and Compare Results: Extract the relevant structural properties from the response of each database. The standardized output format allows for direct comparison of structures and properties retrieved from different sources, enabling meta-analyses and dataset validation.

Protocol: Phase Identification Using COD Data

This methodology describes the use of COD data within powder diffraction software for phase identification, a common experimental task in materials characterization.

• Data Acquisition: Acquire a powder diffraction pattern from the sample material using an X-ray diffractometer.

• Import and Preprocess: Import the measured raw data (e.g., a STOE raw file) into a compatible search-match program like Search/Match2 or HighScore [31]. Apply necessary corrections for background, absorption, and detector dead time.

• Load COD Database: Ensure the compiled COD-derived search-match database is loaded into the software. These are often provided directly by the software vendors (Bruker, Malvern Panalytical, Rigaku) and are optimized for rapid searching [31].

• Perform Search/Match: Execute the search-match algorithm. Modern software uses powerful probabilistic (e.g., Bayesian) algorithms to search the entire COD (over a million entries including predicted patterns) in seconds, ranking potential matching phases by probability [31].

• Validate with Full Pattern Fitting: To check the plausibility of the search-match results, perform a full pattern fitting (Rietveld method) using the candidate phases identified from the COD. This step confirms the phase identification and can provide quantitative information [31].

Figure 1: COD Phase Identification Workflow

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

The following table lists key software tools, libraries, and resources that are essential for effectively working with these open data repositories.

Table 3: Essential Tools and Resources for Open Data Research

Tool/Resource Name	Function/Brief Explanation	Primary Use Case
optimade-python-tools [29]	A Python library for serving and consuming materials data via OPTIMADE APIs.	Simplifies the process of creating an OPTIMADE-compliant server or building a client to query multiple OPTIMADE databases.
Search/Match2 [31]	A commercial software for phase analysis that can utilize the COD database.	Provides a one-click solution for phase identification in powder diffraction data using the public COD.
PANalytical HighScore(Plus) [31]	Another commercial powder diffraction analysis software with integrated COD support.	Used for search-match phase identification and Rietveld refinement with COD-derived databases.
JSmol/Jmol [31] [32]	A JavaScript-based molecular viewer for 3D structure visualization.	Used on the COD website to provide interactive previews of crystal structures, accessible on platforms without Java.
PubChem Programmatic Services [33]	A suite of services (including REST-like interfaces) for automated access to PubChem data.	Enables integration of PubChem's vast chemical and bioactivity data into custom scripts, pipelines, and applications.
GNU Units Database [35]	A definitions database for physical units, included with and licensed separately from OPTIMADE.	Ensures consistent unit handling and conversions across all OPTIMADE implementations.
sPLA2-IIA Inhibitor	sPLA2-IIA Inhibitor, MF:C41H50N8O6, MW:750.9 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
Egfr-IN-103	Egfr-IN-103, MF:C28H24Cl2FN7O2S, MW:612.5 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

The advent of open data repositories and standards like OPTIMADE, the Crystallography Open Database, and PubChem represents a cornerstone of the open science movement in materials informatics. Each resource addresses a critical need: OPTIMADE provides the interoperability layer that federates disparate databases, the COD offers a community-sourced, open-licensed repository of fundamental crystal structures, and PubChem delivers a comprehensive knowledgebase linking chemistry to biological activity. The technical specifications, standardized protocols, and growing adoption of these resources, as documented in their respective scientific publications [29] [30] [36], underscore their maturity and reliability. For researchers and drug development professionals, mastering these tools is no longer optional but essential for conducting state-of-the-art, data-driven research. By lowering barriers to data access and enabling seamless data exchange, these initiatives collectively empower the scientific community to accelerate the discovery of new materials and therapeutic compounds, ultimately advancing the core goals of open science.

The open science movement is fundamentally reshaping research paradigms, demanding greater transparency, collaboration, and efficiency. In the specialized field of materials informatics, which applies data-centric approaches to accelerate materials discovery and development, this shift is particularly impactful [1]. The exponential growth in data volume and complexity necessitates robust frameworks for data stewardship. The FAIR Guiding Principles—standing for Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable—provide exactly such a framework, offering a blueprint for managing digital assets so that they can be effectively used by both humans and computers [21]. The core objective of FAIR is to optimize the reuse of data by enhancing their machine-actionability, a capacity critical for dealing with the scale and intricacy of modern materials science research [21] [37].

Originally published in 2016, the FAIR principles emphasize machine-actionability due to our increasing reliance on computational systems to handle data as a result of its growing volume, complexity, and speed of creation [21]. For materials informatics, which leverages data infrastructures and machine learning for the design and optimization of new materials, adopting FAIR is not merely a best practice but a strategic imperative [1]. It enables the "inverse" direction of innovation—designing materials given desired properties—a task that requires high-quality, well-described, and readily integrable data [1]. This guide details the practical steps researchers can take, from experimental design to final dissemination, to ensure their data is FAIR, thereby contributing to the broader goals of open science.

The Four Pillars of FAIR: An In-Depth Technical Guide

Findable

The first step in data reuse is discovery. Data and metadata must be easy to find for both humans and computers. Machine-readable metadata is essential for the automatic discovery of datasets and services [21].

• Persistent Identifiers (PIDs): Assign a Persistent Identifier (PID), such as a Digital Object Identifier (DOI), to your dataset. This provides an unambiguous and permanent link to your data, facilitating reliable citation and location, even if the underlying URL changes [22] [37]. Repositories like Zenodo or Harvard Dataverse typically provide DOIs upon data deposition [22].
• Rich Metadata: Create comprehensive, descriptive metadata using standardized schemas. This involves filling out fields like title, author, publication date, and resource type with clear, searchable keywords [22] [38]. Discipline-specific metadata standards, which can be found through resources like the DCC metadata directory or FAIRsharing, should be preferred [22].
• Searchable Resources: Ensure your metadata is indexed in a searchable resource or repository. This makes your data discoverable through online searches, including by major search engines and specialized data portals [21] [37].

Accessible

Once found, users need to know how the data can be accessed. The goal is for data to be retrievable using standardized, open protocols [21].

• Standardized Protocols: Data should be accessible through standardized protocols without the need for specialized, proprietary tools. This ensures long-term retrievability [22].
• Clear Access Guidelines: Be transparent about access permissions. Data can be FAIR without being completely open; restricted data should have clear instructions on how to gain authorized access [22]. The mantra is "As Open as Possible, As Closed as Necessary" [22].
• Metadata Preservation: Even if the data itself is restricted, its descriptive metadata should remain openly accessible to ensure the data is findable and its potential value is known [21] [22].
• Trusted Repositories: Deposit data in a reputable, domain-specific repository (e.g., Dryad) or a general-purpose one (e.g., Zenodo, OSF) that stores data safely, makes it findable, and describes it appropriately [22] [37].

Interoperable

Interoperable data can be integrated with other data, applications, and workflows for analysis, storage, and processing [21]. This is crucial for combining datasets in materials informatics to enable powerful, cross-domain insights.

• Common Formats and Standards: Use common, non-proprietary file formats (e.g., CSV, TXT, PDF/A) to maximize the ability of different software to read and process your data [38].
• Controlled Vocabularies and Ontologies: Describe your data using community-agreed terms, schemas, and ontologies. This provides semantic clarity and ensures that concepts are understood uniformly across different systems [22]. Document variables with a codebook or data dictionary that explains units, measurements, and how they map to standard ontologies [38].
• Linking Related Data: Use platform features to link your dataset to other related research objects, such as code in GitHub or citations in Zotero, creating a network of interconnected and contextualized information [38].

Reusable

The ultimate goal of FAIR is to optimize the reuse of data. To achieve this, metadata and data should be so well-described that they can be replicated and/or combined in different settings [21].

• Clear Licenses: Attach a clear and appropriate usage license (e.g., Creative Commons licenses) to your data. This governs the terms of reuse and removes ambiguity about what others can do with your data [22] [38].
• Rich Documentation and Provenance: Provide detailed documentation that describes the data's origins and processing steps. A README file is a minimum standard and should include information on file names and contents, column headings, measurement units, data codes, and any data processing steps not described in an accompanying publication [22] [37]. Also, document the methods and protocols used in data collection and processing to enable replication [38].
• Version Control: Use version control features in platforms like OSF to track updates and corrections to your files. This provides a transparent history of changes, which is critical for future users to understand the evolution of the dataset [38].

Table 1: FAIR Principles at a Glance

Principle	Core Objective	Key Actions for Researchers
Findable	Easy discovery by humans and computers	Assign Persistent Identifiers (DOIs); Use rich, standardized metadata; Deposit in a searchable repository [21] [22].
Accessible	Data can be retrieved after discovery	Use standard, open protocols; Store in a trusted repository; Provide clear access instructions [21] [22].
Interoperable	Data can be integrated with other data	Use common, open file formats; Employ controlled vocabularies/ontologies; Link related data [21] [22] [38].
Reusable	Data can be replicated and combined in new research	Provide clear license and provenance; Include detailed documentation (e.g., README); Use version control [21] [22] [38].

Practical Workflow: Implementing FAIR from Experimental Design to Dissemination

Implementing FAIR is not a single action at the end of a project but a process integrated throughout the research lifecycle. The following workflow and diagram provide a practical pathway from planning to sharing.

Diagram 1: FAIR Data Implementation Workflow

Experimental Design and Planning (Pre-Collection)

"Begin with the end in mind." Structuring your research project with FAIR principles from the outset is the most effective approach [38].

• Develop a Data Management and Sharing Plan (DMP): A DMP is a living document that outlines what data will be created, how it will be managed, documented, stored, and shared. Funding bodies like the European Commission often require DMPs and provide FAIR guidelines to inform them [22].
• Define Metadata Standards: Early in the project, identify and agree upon the metadata standards, controlled vocabularies, and ontologies you will use. Consult resources like FAIRsharing to find discipline-specific standards [22].
• Create Documentation Templates: Prepare templates for your README file and other documentation (e.g., codebook) before data collection begins. This ensures consistent and comprehensive documentation throughout the project [38].

Active Research Phase (During Collection and Analysis)

Throughout the research process, maintain practices that preserve data integrity and enrich context.

• Use Consistent, Open Formats: Collect and save data in widely used, non-proprietary file formats from the start to avoid future conversion issues and ensure long-term accessibility [37] [38].
• Implement Version Control: Use version control systems (e.g., Git) or platform features (e.g., in OSF) to track changes to data files, code, and documentation. This creates a transparent audit trail [38].
• Populate Documentation: Continuously update your README file and data dictionary as you collect and process data. Immediate documentation is more accurate than relying on memory at the project's end [37].

Data Dissemination (Post-Research)

When the research cycle is complete, prepare the data for public sharing to maximize its impact and reusability.

• Select a Trusted Repository: Choose a repository that safely stores data, assigns a persistent identifier, adds rich metadata, and includes licensing information [22] [37]. Prefer domain-specific repositories when available, or use general repositories like Zenodo or OSF [22].
• Generate a Persistent Identifier and Citation: Once deposited, the repository will typically assign a PID like a DOI. Create a pre-formatted citation for the dataset and use it in your publications and on your website to encourage proper attribution [37].
• Apply a Clear License: Use a license picker tool or consult with your institution's librarians to select an appropriate license (e.g., CC-BY, CC-0) that clearly states the terms of reuse [22] [38].

Table 2: Essential Tools and Resources for FAIR Data Management

Tool Category	Example	Function in FAIRification
Trusted Repositories	Zenodo, Dryad, OSF, discipline-specific repositories	Provide persistent storage, assign PIDs (DOIs), enhance findability via indexing, and often provide metadata guidance [22] [37] [38].
Metadata Standards Directories	FAIRsharing, RDA Metadata Directory, DCC	Provide access to discipline-specific metadata standards, schemas, and ontologies to ensure interoperability [22].
Documentation Tools	Plain text README files, Codebooks, Data Dictionaries	Ensure reusability by describing data content, structure, provenance, and methodologies in a human-readable format [22] [37].
License Selectors	OSF License Picker, EUDAT License Wizard	Guide researchers in selecting an appropriate legal license for their data to govern reuse [22] [38].

Building a FAIR data package requires a set of conceptual and practical tools. The following checklist and resource list provide a concrete starting point.

Table 3: FAIR Data Preparation Checklist

Checkpoint	Status
Dataset/Files
    Data is in an open, trusted repository.	□
    Dataset has a registered Persistent Identifier (e.g., DOI).	□
    Data files are in standard, open formats.	□
README/Metadata
    All data files are unambiguously named and described.	□
    Metadata includes useful disciplinary notation and terminology.	□
    Metadata includes machine-readable standards (e.g., ORCIDs, ISO 8601 dates).	□
    Related articles are referenced and linked.	□
    A pre-formatted citation is provided.	□
    License terms and terms of use are clearly indicated.	□
    Metadata is exportable in a machine-readable format (e.g., XML, JSON).	□

Research Reagent Solutions for Data Management

In the context of data management, "research reagents" are the digital tools and standards that enable FAIR practices.

• Persistent Identifiers (PIDs): Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs) are the most common type of PID for datasets. Their function is to provide a permanent, reliable link to the digital object, ensuring it remains findable and citable over time, regardless of URL changes [22].
• Metadata Schemas: These are structured frameworks (e.g., Dublin Core, discipline-specific schemas) that define which fields of information (metadata) should be used to describe a dataset. Their function is to ensure consistency, richness, and machine-readability of descriptions, which is fundamental to findability and interoperability [22].
• Controlled Vocabularies/Ontologies: These are standardized, defined lists of terms and their relationships used to describe data concepts. Their function is to eliminate ambiguity in terminology, enabling precise semantic understanding and seamless data integration from different sources, which is the core of interoperability [22].
• README File Templates: A pre-formatted document (usually plain text) guiding the comprehensive documentation of a dataset. Its function is to capture critical information for reusability, such as file manifest, variable definitions, methodology, and licensing, at the time of creation [37] [38].
• Creative Commons Licenses: A set of public copyright licenses that allow for the free distribution of an otherwise copyrighted work. Their function in data sharing is to communicate clearly and simply how other researchers may use the data, thus enabling and encouraging legal reuse [22] [38].

Integrating the FAIR principles into the research workflow, from initial design to final dissemination, is no longer an optional enhancement but a fundamental component of modern, collaborative science, particularly in data-intensive fields like materials informatics. This approach directly supports the goals of the open science movement by making research outputs more transparent, reproducible, and impactful. While the initial investment of time and effort is non-trivial, the long-term benefits—including enhanced visibility and citation of research, fostering of new collaborations, and acceleration of the scientific discovery process—are substantial. By adopting the best practices and utilizing the tools outlined in this guide, researchers and drug development professionals can effectively navigate the transition to FAIR data, ensuring their work remains at the forefront of scientific innovation.

The field of materials science is undergoing a profound transformation, shifting from traditional research methodologies reliant on experimentation and intuition to a data-driven paradigm that leverages artificial intelligence (AI) and cloud computing. This evolution represents the emergence of the fourth scientific paradigm, following the historical eras of experimental, theoretical, and computational science [39]. At the intersection of this transformation lies Materials Informatics (MI), a discipline that applies data-driven approaches to accelerate property prediction and materials discovery by training machine learning models on data obtained from experiments and simulations [9]. The core advantage of this methodology is its ability to make inductive inferences from data, rendering it applicable even to complex phenomena where the underlying mechanisms are not fully understood. This technical review explores the AI-MI synergy within the broader context of the open science movement, which provides the philosophical foundation and infrastructural framework necessary for its advancement. By making scientific research, including publications, data, physical samples, and software accessible to all levels of society, open science creates the collaborative ecosystem required for the development of robust, widely applicable AI-driven materials discovery pipelines [40].

The integration of AI with materials science is not merely an incremental improvement but a fundamental paradigm shift in research methodology. Where traditional materials development has historically relied heavily on the experience and intuition of researchers—a process that is often person-dependent, time-consuming, and costly—MI transforms materials development into a more sustainable and efficient process through systematic data accumulation and analysis with AI technologies [9]. This paradigm is being increasingly adopted by numerous research institutions and corporations globally, including top-tier institutions such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST), and the National Institute for Materials Science (NIMS), alongside major chemical companies and IT corporations [9]. The convergence of AI/ML technologies with the principles of open science has the potential to dramatically accelerate the entire materials discovery pipeline from initial design to deployment, potentially reducing development timelines from years to months or even weeks.

Core Methodologies in AI-Driven Materials Informatics

Fundamental Applications: Prediction and Exploration

The application of machine learning in materials informatics can be broadly categorized into two primary methodologies: property prediction and materials exploration, each with distinct technical approaches and implementation considerations.

Table 1: Core Methodologies in Materials Informatics

Methodology	Technical Approach	Key Algorithms	Use Cases
Property Prediction	Training ML models on datasets pairing input features with measured properties	Linear models, Kernel methods, Tree-based models, Neural Networks [9]	Predicting hardness, melting point, electrical conductivity of novel materials [9]
Materials Exploration	Iterative optimization using predicted means and uncertainties to select experiments	Bayesian Optimization with Gaussian Process Regression, acquisition functions (PI, EI, UCB) [9]	Discovering materials with properties surpassing existing ones, optimal synthesis conditions [9]

The prediction approach involves training machine learning models on a dataset of known materials where input features (e.g., chemical structures, manufacturing conditions) are paired with corresponding measured properties (e.g., hardness, melting point, electrical conductivity) [9]. Once trained, the model can predict the properties of novel materials or different manufacturing conditions without physical experiments, effectively leveraging vast archives of historical experimental data. This approach is particularly valuable when extensive datasets are available and the target materials share similarities with the training data.

In contrast, the exploration approach addresses scenarios where data is scarce or the goal is to discover materials with properties that surpass existing ones. This methodology utilizes both the predicted mean and the predicted standard deviation to intelligently select the next experiment to perform [9]. Through an iterative process of prediction, experimentation, and model refinement, this approach enables the efficient discovery of optimal chemical structures and conditions. The exploration approach is formally implemented through Bayesian Optimization, with Gaussian Process Regression frequently used as it can simultaneously compute both a predicted mean and predicted standard deviation [9].

Feature Engineering and Representation Learning

A critical technical challenge in applying machine learning to materials science is converting chemical structures and material compositions into numerical representations that algorithms can process. The field has developed two primary approaches for this feature engineering process:

• Knowledge-Based Feature Engineering: This method leverages existing chemical knowledge to generate descriptors. For organic molecules, this may include descriptors such as molecular weight or the number of substituents, while for inorganic materials, features might include the mean and variance of the atomic radii or electronegativity of the constituent atoms [9]. The primary advantage of this approach is the ability to achieve stable and robust predictive accuracy even with limited data, though it requires significant domain expertise and the optimal feature set often varies depending on the class of materials and target property.

• Automated Feature Extraction: In recent years, methods that automatically extract features using neural networks have gained considerable attention, with Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) proving particularly powerful [9]. GNNs treat molecules and crystals as graphs, where atoms are represented as nodes and chemical bonds as edges. These networks can automatically learn feature representations that encode information about the local chemical environment, such as the spatial arrangement and bonding relationships between connected atoms, and use these features to predict target properties. This approach typically requires larger datasets but eliminates the need for manual feature engineering and can capture complex relationships that might be missed by human experts.

The following diagram illustrates the complete workflow for AI-driven materials discovery, integrating both prediction and exploration approaches:

AI-MI Materials Discovery Workflow

Synergy with Computational Chemistry and Machine Learning Force Fields

A significant challenge in MI is the scarcity of high-quality experimental data, which is often costly and time-consuming to acquire. One powerful strategy to address this limitation is the integration of MI with computational chemistry, particularly through the development of Machine Learning Interatomic Potentials (MLIPs) [9]. These potentials overcome the computational bottleneck of traditional Density Functional Theory (DFT) calculations by replacing quantum mechanical computations of interatomic interactions with machine learning models, enabling dramatic acceleration of calculations—by hundreds of thousands of times or more—while maintaining accuracy comparable to DFT [9].

This breakthrough has profound implications for materials discovery, as it enables the rapid simulation of diverse structures and conditions that were previously computationally inaccessible. The extensive datasets generated by these high-throughput simulations can then be used as training data for MI models, creating a powerful synergistic cycle that directly addresses the foundational problem of data scarcity [9]. This convergence of MI and computational chemistry represents an emerging paradigm that significantly expands the predictive scope of materials informatics, particularly in the interpolation domain where sufficient training data exists.

Table 2: AI Techniques in Materials Science Applications

AI Technology	Application in Materials Science	Impact/Performance
Machine Learning Interatomic Potentials (MLIPs)	Large-scale molecular dynamics simulations	Accuracy of ab initio methods at fraction of computational cost [41] [9]
Generative Models	Inverse design of novel materials and synthesis routes	Proposes new materials with tailored properties [41]
Explainable AI	Interpretation of model predictions and scientific insight	Improves model trust and physical interpretability [41]
Graph Neural Networks	Representation of complex molecular structures	Automated feature extraction from chemical environments [9]
Autonomous Laboratories	Self-driving experimentation with real-time feedback	Adaptive experimentation and optimization [41]

Experimental Protocols and Implementation Frameworks

Workflow Implementation for AI/ML Projects

The implementation of AI-MI solutions follows structured workflows to ensure robustness and reproducibility. The Emerging Technologies AI/ML team at the Department of Labor, for instance, employs an incubation process operating in four distinct phases: Discovery, Proof of Concept (POC), Pilot, and Production (Scale) [42]. In the Discovery phase, requirements are gathered and a technical system architecture is designed. The POC phase involves prototyping with small datasets to train initial ML models and evaluate their performance in a provisioned environment. Successful prototypes then advance to the Pilot phase, where full solutions are implemented in secure environments with comprehensive testing and validation against responsible AI frameworks. Finally, the Production phase involves full deployment with system integration, monitoring, and operational maintenance plans [42].

This structured approach ensures that AI-MI projects are technically sound, address real scientific needs, and can be sustainably maintained throughout their lifecycle. The methodology emphasizes documentation at each stage, including Business Case Assessments, System Architecture Design Documents, Implementation Plans, and Operations & Maintenance Transition Plans [42].

Cloud Computing Infrastructure and Data Governance

The effective implementation of AI-MI relies heavily on robust cloud computing infrastructure and comprehensive data governance strategies. Platforms like Materials Cloud provide specialized environments designed to enable open and seamless sharing of resources for computational science, driven by applications in materials modelling [43]. Such platforms host archival and dissemination services for raw and curated data, modelling services and virtual machines, tools for data analytics and pre-/post-processing, and educational materials [43].

Data governance in AI-MI projects typically leverages cloud-based data warehousing infrastructure, such as Snowflake, to centralize diverse data categories including training data for custom machine learning models, log data from API interactions, model performance metrics, resource consumption tracking, error monitoring, and responsible AI metrics [42]. This centralized approach enables efficient computational resource allocation, sophisticated statistical computation, and comprehensive analytics reporting through dashboards that track key performance indicators and business value metrics [42].

The diagram below illustrates the architecture of an open science platform for computational materials science:

Open Science Platform Architecture

The Open Science Framework and Research Infrastructure

Principles and Impact of Open Science

The open science movement provides the essential philosophical and practical foundation for the advancement of AI-driven materials informatics. Open science is broadly defined as the movement to make scientific research and its dissemination accessible to all levels of society, amateur or professional [40]. It encompasses practices such as publishing open research, campaigning for open access, encouraging scientists to practice open-notebook science, broader dissemination and public engagement in science, and generally making it easier to publish, access and communicate scientific knowledge [40].

The six core principles of open science are: (1) open methodology, (2) open source, (3) open data, (4) open access, (5) open peer review, and (6) open educational resources [40]. These principles directly support the AI-MI paradigm by ensuring the availability of high-quality, diverse datasets for training machine learning models, enabling transparency and reproducibility of computational methods, and facilitating collaboration across institutional and geographical boundaries. The European Commission outlines open science as "a new approach to the scientific process based on cooperative work and new ways of diffusing knowledge by using digital technologies and new collaborative tools" [39], which perfectly aligns with the needs of AI-driven materials research.

Research Infrastructures and Data Repositories

Specialized research infrastructures have emerged to support the unique requirements of computational materials science. Materials Cloud, for instance, is an open-science platform that provides comprehensive services supporting researchers throughout the life cycle of a scientific project [43]. Its ARCHIVE section is an open-access, moderated repository for research data in computational materials science that provides globally unique and persistent digital object identifiers (DOIs) for every record, ensuring long-term preservation and citability [43]. This and similar platforms address the critical challenge of data veracity, integration of experimental and computational data, data longevity, and standardization that have impeded progress in data-driven materials science [39].

These infrastructures are essential for creating what has been envisioned as the Materials Ultimate Search Engine (MUSE)—a powerful search tool for materials that would dramatically accelerate the materials value chain from discovery to deployment [39]. By making datasets FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable), these platforms enable the development of more robust and generalizable AI models while preventing duplication of effort and promoting scientific rigor through transparency and reproducibility.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Tool/Category	Specific Examples	Function/Role in Research
ML Algorithms	Linear Regression, SVM, Random Forest, GBDT, Neural Networks [9]	Property prediction from material features and descriptors
Optimization Methods	Bayesian Optimization with Gaussian Process Regression [9]	Efficient exploration of materials space and experimental conditions
Feature Engineering	Knowledge-based descriptors, Graph Neural Networks [9]	Representing chemical compounds as numerical features for ML models
Simulation Methods	Density Functional Theory, Machine Learning Interatomic Potentials [9]	Generating training data and validating predictions at atomic scale
Data Infrastructure	AiiDA workflow manager, Materials Cloud ARCHIVE [43]	Managing computational workflows and ensuring data provenance
Analysis & Visualization	Snowsight, custom dashboards [42]	Interpreting model results and tracking project performance metrics

The synergy between artificial intelligence and materials informatics represents a fundamental paradigm shift in materials research methodology, transforming it from traditional approaches based on experience and intuition to data-driven science [9]. This transformation is intrinsically linked to the open science movement, which provides both the philosophical foundation and practical infrastructure necessary for its success. As the field advances, key challenges remain in model generalizability, standardized data formats, experimental validation, and energy efficiency [41]. Future developments will likely focus on hybrid approaches that combine physical knowledge with data-driven models, the creation of more comprehensive open-access datasets including negative experiments, and the establishment of ethical frameworks to ensure responsible deployment of AI technologies in materials science [41].

Emerging technologies such as autonomous experimentation through robotics and the use of Large Language Models to convert unstructured text from scientific literature into structured data promise to further address data bottlenecks and accelerate materials discovery [9]. The continued development of modular AI systems, improved human-AI collaboration, integration with techno-economic analysis, and field-deployable robotics will further enhance the impact of AI-MI synergy [41]. By aligning computational innovation with practical implementation and open science principles, AI is poised to drive scalable, sustainable, and interpretable materials discovery, turning autonomous experimentation into a powerful engine for scientific advancement that benefits both the research community and society at large.

The Structural Genomics Consortium (SGC) is a global public-private partnership that has pioneered an open science model to accelerate early-stage drug discovery. By generating fundamental research on human proteins and making all outputs—including reagents, data, and chemical probes—freely available, the SGC creates a patent-free knowledge base that de-risks subsequent therapeutic development [44]. This case study examines the SGC's operational framework, its quantifiable impact, and its role as a blueprint for open science within the broader materials informatics landscape. Its model demonstrates how pre-competitive collaboration and FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) data principles are essential for building the high-quality datasets needed to power modern, data-driven research, including machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) in drug and materials discovery [45] [46].

The SGC Open Science Framework: Principles and Incentives

The SGC's model is fundamentally structured as a pre-competitive consortium. Its primary focus is on understanding the functions of all human proteins, particularly those that are understudied [47] [48]. The core operational principle is that all research outputs are released into the public domain without any intellectual property (IP) restrictions [44] [48]. This creates a "patent-free commons" of resources, knowledge, and data, which includes both positive and negative results, providing the wider research community with the freedom to operate [44].

The incentives for diverse stakeholders to participate in this open model are multifaceted and strategically aligned. An independent evaluation by RAND Europe identified key incentives for investment, which are summarized below alongside the disincentives that the model must overcome [48].

Table: Incentives and Disincentives for Investment in the SGC Open Science Model

Stakeholder Group	Key Incentives for Participation	Key Disincentives & Challenges
Pharmaceutical Companies	- De-risking emerging science (e.g., epigenetics) at low cost [48]- Access to a global network of academic experts [48]- Cost and risk sharing for large-scale biology efforts [44]	- No protected IP on immediate SGC outputs [48]
Academic Researchers	- Access to world-class tools, reagents, and data [48]- Collaborative opportunities with industry and other academics without transactional IP barriers [44] [48]	- Perception of limited local spillover effects for some public funders [48]
Public & Charitable Funders	- Acceleration of basic research for human health [48]- Efficient, rapid research processes with industrial-scale quality and reproducibility [48]	- Meeting diverse needs of individual funders regarding regional economic impact [48]

Quantitative Impact and Collaborative Outputs

Since its inception in 2003, the SGC has established a proven track record as a world leader in structural biology and chemical probe development [46]. The consortium's impact is demonstrated through its extensive network and high-volume output. It comprises a core of 20 research groups and collaborates with scientists in hundreds of universities worldwide, alongside nine global pharmaceutical companies [48]. This network has enabled the SGC to determine thousands of protein structures and develop numerous new chemical probes, systematically targeting understudied areas of the human genome [47] [48]. The model's efficiency is widely acknowledged, with most stakeholders reporting that research progresses more rapidly within the SGC than in traditional academic or industrial settings [48].

Table: SGC's Collaborative Network and Output Metrics

Metric Category	Specific Details
Organizational Structure	20 core research groups operating as a public-private partnership (PPP) [48]
Global Network	Hundreds of university labs and 9 global pharmaceutical companies [48]
Primary Research Focus	Structural biology of human proteins; characterization of chemical probes for understudied proteins [46]
Key Outputs	Thousands of determined protein structures; multiple developed chemical probes [47]
Research Speed	Majority of interviewees reported research happens more quickly than in traditional academia or industry [48]

Phase 2 Transformation: Target 2035 and Computational Hit-Finding

The SGC is currently leading Target 2035, a bold, global open science initiative aiming to develop a pharmacological tool for every human protein by the year 2035 [45]. The first phase focused on identifying chemical modulators and testing technologies. The initiative's second phase, launched in 2025, proposes a radical paradigm shift: to transform early hit-finding into a computationally enabled, data-driven endeavor [45].

The Target 2035 Phase 2 Experimental Protocol

The following workflow diagram and corresponding description detail the integrated, iterative methodology of Target 2035's second phase.

Diagram: The Target 2035 Phase 2 Open Science Workflow for Computational Hit-Finding

The workflow is designed as a continuous cycle of data generation and model refinement, consisting of the following key stages [45]:

• Protein Production & QC: A global network of experimental hubs will produce and validate over 2,000 structurally diverse human proteins. Rigorous quality control ensures consistency and reliability for all downstream datasets.
• Quantitative Binding Data Generation: This stage employs high-throughput direct screening technologies, primarily DNA-Encoded Libraries (DEL) and Affinity Selection Mass Spectrometry (AS-MS), to identify protein binders. These methods are complemented by biophysical studies to characterize binding affinity and mode of action.
• Open Data Deposition: All primary screening and confirmatory data are deposited into AIRCHECK (Artificial Intelligence-Ready CHEmiCal Knowledge base), a purpose-built, open-access platform. AIRCHECK ensures all data is FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) for the global research community.
• Machine Learning & Benchmarking: The FAIR datasets from AIRCHECK serve as the foundation for global ML challenges, run in partnership with organizations like CACHE and DREAM Challenges. A network of ML scientists (MAINFRAME) participates by training models to predict hits from chemical libraries and openly sharing their algorithms.
• Prospective Experimental Validation: The predicted hits from the ML challenges are experimentally tested by consortium labs. The results of these validation experiments are then fed back into the data repository, closing the iterative loop and enabling continuous refinement of the ML models.

Connection to Materials Informatics and the Broader Open Science Movement

The SGC's approach is a powerful manifestation of open science principles that are simultaneously transforming the field of materials informatics (MI). Materials informatics, defined as the use of data-centric approaches for the advancement of materials science, relies on the same core enablers as the SGC's computational drug discovery mission: robust data infrastructures and machine learning [1].

The strategic advantages of employing advanced ML in R&D, as identified in MI, directly parallel the goals of Target 2035. These include enhanced screening of candidates, reducing the number of experiments required (and thus time to market), and discovering new materials or relationships [1]. The data challenges are also similar; both fields must often work with "sparse, high-dimensional, biased, and noisy data," making domain expertise and high-quality, curated datasets critical for success [1].

The SGC's AIRCHECK database is directly analogous to the open-access data repositories needed for MI. Furthermore, the broader open science and metascience movement is increasingly viewed as a key to accelerating progress, with workshops from organizations like CSET and the NSF highlighting how artificial intelligence can be harnessed as a tool in these efforts [49].

The strategic approaches for adopting these data-centric methods are also consistent across both domains. Organizations can choose to operate fully in-house, work with external specialist companies, or join forces as part of a consortium—the very model the SGC has perfected for drug discovery [1]. The global market for external materials informatics services is forecast to grow significantly, highlighting the increasing importance of these collaborative, data-driven models in research and development [1].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagents and Platforms

The experimental and computational protocols of the SGC and similar open science initiatives rely on a suite of key reagents, technologies, and platforms.

Table: Essential Research Reagents and Solutions for Open Science Drug Discovery

Reagent / Platform	Category	Function in the Workflow
Validated Human Proteins	Biological Reagent	High-quality, consistently produced proteins for screening assays; the primary target input [45].
DNA-Encoded Library (DEL)	Screening Technology	A technology that allows for the high-throughput screening of vast chemical libraries against a protein target to identify binders [45].
Chemical Probes	Research Tool	Well-characterized, potent, and selective small molecules used to modulate the function of specific proteins in follow-up biological experiments [46].
AIRCHECK Database	Data Platform	A purpose-built, open-access knowledge base for depositing, storing, and sharing AI-ready chemical binding data according to FAIR principles [45].
bioRxiv / medRxiv	Preprint Platform	Open-access preprint servers for sharing research findings rapidly before formal peer review, accelerating dissemination [50].
20S Proteasome-IN-5	20S Proteasome-IN-5, MF:C37H46N6O10, MW:734.8 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

The Structural Genomics Consortium provides a compelling and proven model for how open science can transform early-stage research. By eliminating patent barriers, fostering pre-competitive collaboration, and rigorously generating open-access data, the SGC has not only accelerated basic biology and drug discovery but has also positioned itself at the forefront of the computational revolution. Its Target 2035 roadmap exemplifies the next stage of this evolution, demonstrating that the future of discovery in both biology and materials science hinges on the synergistic combination of open data, machine learning, and global community collaboration. This case study offers a scalable blueprint for applying open science principles to overcome inherent inefficiencies and accelerate innovation across multiple scientific domains.

The world of materials science is undergoing a revolution, with materials informatics platforms at the forefront of this transformation [51]. The broader open science movement advocates for making scientific knowledge openly available, accessible, and reusable for everyone, thereby increasing scientific collaborations and sharing of information [52]. Within materials informatics research, this translates to a pressing need to enhance research transparency, improve reproducibility of results, and accelerate the pace of discovery through better data sharing practices [53]. Operationalizing these principles requires more than policy adoption; it demands integrated technological infrastructure that connects data generation, management, and dissemination.

Central to this infrastructure are Electronic Laboratory Notebooks (ELN), Laboratory Information Management Systems (LIMS), and automated data pipelines. These systems create a continuum of data management across the product lifecycle when properly integrated [54]. The synergy between these platforms enables researchers to transition from idea inception to commercialization with minimal duplication of effort and improved data accuracy, thereby supporting the core tenets of open science while addressing the "replication crisis" noted across scientific disciplines [55]. For materials informatics specifically, where AI and machine learning are leveraged to significantly reduce R&D cycles [51], such infrastructure becomes indispensable for generating the FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) data necessary to power predictive models.

Core System Architectures: ELN, LIMS, and Their Roles in Open Science

Electronic Laboratory Notebooks (ELNs): Digital Documentation for Reproducibility

Electronic Laboratory Notebooks represent the digital evolution of traditional, paper-based lab notebooks, serving as the primary environment for capturing the research narrative [54]. In the context of open science, ELNs play a crucial role in enhancing research transparency and methodological clarity.

Key ELN Functions Supporting Open Science:

• Digital documentation of experiments, formulas, calculations, and observations
• Real-time data capture that ensures contemporaneous recording of experimental details
• Collaboration features enabling multiple researchers to work on the same notebook simultaneously
• Electronic signatures and audit trails that maintain data integrity and support intellectual property protection
• Integration capabilities with instruments and inventory systems
• Structured data organization that facilitates searchability and knowledge retrieval

The transition to ELNs addresses a critical challenge in scientific research: the "replication crisis," where failures to replicate experiments result in significant financial losses annually across science and industry [54]. By capturing experimental details in real-time with comprehensive context, ELNs enhance the reproducibility of materials informatics research, a fundamental requirement for credible open science.

Laboratory Information Management Systems (LIMS): Operationalizing Data Management

While ELNs capture the experimental narrative, Laboratory Information Management Systems provide the operational backbone for sample and data management [56]. LIMS serve as centralized, consolidated points of collaboration throughout the testing process, delivering a holistic view of laboratory operations [54].

Key LIMS Functions for Open Science Infrastructure:

• Sample tracking and management across their complete lifecycle
• Workflow automation that minimizes manual tasks and reduces transcription errors
• Laboratory equipment and instrumentation integration
• Inventory management for reagents and materials
• Reporting, analytics, and visualization tools
• Stability testing and tracking to monitor material shelf life and storage conditions

Modern LIMS solutions, such as Uncountable's integrated platform, centralize all R&D efforts across organizations through structured data systems that standardize data entry, storage, and retrieval [56]. This structured approach is essential for generating standardized, reusable datasets that can be shared in accordance with FAIR principles, a cornerstone of open science implementation.

The Synergy: Integrated Data Infrastructure

The combination of ELN and LIMS creates a powerful symbiotic relationship that operationalizes open science principles throughout the research lifecycle [54]. ELNs advance ideation and intellectual property protection through real-time data capture, while LIMS operationalize execution through workflow optimization and quality control.

This integrated approach addresses the historical challenge of data siloing in research environments. According to recent analyses, the failure to maintain integrated data systems has resulted in significant inefficiencies, with some organizations reporting that scientists spend excessive time on manual documentation rather than research activities [54]. The integrated ELN-LIMS infrastructure liberates researchers from these administrative burdens while simultaneously creating the foundation for compliant data sharing.

Table 1: Functional Complementarity of ELN and LIMS in Open Science

Research Phase	ELN Functions	LIMS Functions	Open Science Benefit
Ideation	Protocol design, literature review, hypothesis generation	-	Promotes transparency in research conception
Experiment Planning	Procedure documentation, calculation setup	Sample registration, reagent lot tracking	Ensures methodological reproducibility
Execution	Real-time observation recording, deviation documentation	Workflow management, instrument integration	Creates comprehensive audit trail
Analysis	Data interpretation, visualization creation	Automated data aggregation, quality control checks	Facilitates result verification
Publication	Manuscript drafting, method description	Regulatory compliance reporting, data export	Supports data availability statements

Workflow Automation: The Engine of Reproducibility

Automated Data Pipelines in Materials Informatics

Workflow automation serves as the critical bridge between ELN/LIMS infrastructure and practical open science implementation. In materials informatics, scientific workflows provide complete descriptions of procedures leading to final data used to predict material properties [57]. These workflows typically consist of multiple steps ranging from initial setup of a molecule or system to sequences of calculations with dependencies and automated post-processing of parsed data.

The FireWorks workflow software, used in platforms like MISPR (Materials Informatics for Structure-Property Relationship Research), models workflows as Directed Acyclic Graphs representing chains of relationships between computational operations [57]. Each workflow consists of one or more jobs with dependencies, ensuring execution in the correct order. At the end of each workflow, an analysis task is performed to generate standardized reports in JSON format or as MongoDB documents, containing all input parameters, output data, software version information, and chemical metadata.

Essential Characteristics of Automated Workflows for Open Science:

• Reproducibility: Consistent results using the same input data, computational steps, methods, and conditions of analysis [52]
• Transparency: Complete documentation of operations performed during automated workflows
• Automation: Minimization of manual intervention to reduce error and deviation
• Modularity: Discrete, logically related sequential steps where output of one step feeds directly into the next

Practical Implementation of Reproducible Workflows

Implementing reproducible workflows requires both technical infrastructure and methodological rigor. Research data management best practices recommend several key approaches [52]:

• Document operations through comments in code in addition to other documentation forms
• Automate as much as possible, with scripts and code being preferable to GUI tools
• Use relative filepaths to ensure portability across different computing environments
• Conceptualize workflow design clearly as a series of logically related sequential steps
• Use a main script to bundle execution of multiple scripts for single-command reproducibility

The literate programming approach has emerged as particularly valuable for creating reproducible workflows. This method embeds executable code snippets in documents containing natural language explanations of operations and analysis [52]. Popular tools include Jupyter notebooks (supporting Python, R, and Julia) and RStudio with R Markdown or Quarto. These platforms combine support for literate programming with interactive features and version control integrations, making them ideal for open science implementations in materials informatics.

Diagram 1: Integrated data flow supporting open science in materials informatics. This workflow demonstrates how ELN, LIMS, and automated pipelines create a continuous cycle of data generation, processing, and sharing within the broader open science ecosystem.

Implementing FAIR Data Principles: A Practical Framework

The FAIR Framework for Materials Data

The FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) provide a concrete framework for implementing open science in materials informatics research. Making data FAIR represents a cornerstone of sustainable research infrastructure that significantly enhances research impact, fosters collaborations, and advances scientific discovery [38]. The Open Science Framework (OSF) offers robust tools to help researchers implement these principles effectively throughout the ELN-LIMS pipeline.

Table 2: Implementing FAIR Principles Through Integrated ELN-LIMS Infrastructure

FAIR Principle	Implementation Strategy	ELN/LIMS Integration Points
Findable	Use descriptive titles with searchable keywords	ELN: Project naming conventionsLIMS: Sample identification systems
	Add rich metadata using standardized fields	LIMS: Structured metadata captureELN: Experimental context documentation
	Generate persistent identifiers (DOIs)	OSF integration: Automatic DOI generation for projects and components
Accessible	Set clear access permissions based on sensitivity	LIMS: Role-based access controlELN: Contributor permission settings
	Provide detailed documentation in README files	ELN: Protocol documentationLIMS: Process documentation
	Make public components when possible	OSF: Selective sharing of non-sensitive project components
Interoperable	Adopt standard, non-proprietary file formats	LIMS: Standardized data export formatsELN: Standard analysis file outputs
	Document variables with codebooks/data dictionaries	ELN: Experimental parameter documentationLIMS: Sample attribute standardization
	Link add-ons and external resources	OSF: Integration with GitHub, Dataverse, and other research tools
Reusable	Include appropriate licensing information	OSF: License selection tools for projects and data
	Document methods and protocols clearly	ELN: Detailed methodological descriptionsLIMS: Process workflow documentation
	Implement version control for data and protocols	LIMS: Sample and process version trackingELN: Notebook versioning features

The Open Science Framework (OSF) as Integration Hub

The Open Science Framework serves as a critical integration point for ELN, LIMS, and automated data pipelines within an open science context. OSF is an open source, web-based project management tool that creates collaborative workspaces with various features including file upload, version control, permission settings, and integrations with external tools [52].

Key OSF Features for Materials Informatics:

• Project registration for sharing public "snapshots" of research
• Storage and version control for files with automatic tracking
• Built-in wiki functionality for documentation, procedures, and meeting notes
• Granular permissions for collaborators with adjustable access levels
• Integrations with storage options (Google Drive, Box), code repositories (GitHub, GitLab), and citation management software
• Project analytics and identifiers with DOI generation capabilities
• Selective sharing allowing different components to have different visibility settings

The University of Virginia and other institutional members can affiliate their projects with their institutions, providing additional credibility and support [52]. This institutional integration strengthens the open science infrastructure supporting materials informatics research.

Case Study: Materials Informatics Workflow for Porous Materials

Experimental Framework and Workflow Design

To illustrate the practical implementation of integrated ELN-LIMS systems in materials informatics, we examine a case study involving the development of architectured porous materials, including metal-organic frameworks (MOFs), electrospun PVDF piezoelectrics, and 3D printed mechanical metamaterials [5]. This case demonstrates how hybrid models combining traditional computational approaches with AI/ML-assisted models can enhance both research efficiency and transparency.

Experimental Workflow for Porous Materials Development:

• Materials Design and Selection

  • Molecular structure design in ELN with rationale documentation
  • Historical data review through LIMS of similar compounds
  • Computational screening of potential candidates

• Synthesis Protocol Development

  • Procedure documentation in ELN with safety considerations
  • Reagent tracking through LIMS inventory management
  • Automated stability testing schedule setup

• Characterization and Testing

  • Instrument integration for automated data capture
  • Real-time data recording in structured formats
  • Quality control checks through LIMS validation protocols

• Data Analysis and Modeling

  • Automated data processing through predefined pipelines
  • AI/ML model training with version-controlled datasets
  • Traditional computational models for physical consistency

• Results Documentation and Sharing

  • FAIR data deposition in designated repositories
  • Manuscript preparation with linked data availability statements
  • Public sharing of non-proprietary components through OSF

Diagram 2: Materials informatics workflow for porous materials development, showing integration points between experimental processes and informatics infrastructure within an open science context.

Research Reagent Solutions for Materials Informatics

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Materials for Porous Materials Development

Reagent/Material	Function	LIMS Tracking Parameters	Open Science Considerations
Metal precursors	MOF cluster formation	Lot number, concentration, storage conditions	Document supplier specifications and purity verification methods
Organic linkers	Framework structure formation	Synthesis date, characterization data, stability information	Share synthetic protocols and characterization data
PVDF polymer	Electrospun piezoelectric matrix	Molecular weight, viscosity, solvent compatibility	Document processing parameters and environmental conditions
Solvents and modifiers	Solution processing and morphology control	Purity, water content, expiration dates	Track batch-to-batch variations that may affect reproducibility
3D printing resins	Additive manufacturing of metamaterials	Cure parameters, viscosity, shelf life	Document post-processing procedures and parameter optimization
Reference materials	Quality control and instrument calibration	Source, certification, recommended usage	Include calibration protocols in shared methodology

Implementation Roadmap and Best Practices

Strategic Implementation Approach

Successfully operationalizing open science through ELN-LIMS integration requires a phased approach that addresses both technical and cultural challenges. Research organizations should consider the following implementation strategy:

Phase 1: Foundation Building (Months 1-3)

• Assess current data management practices and identify critical gaps
• Select ELN/LIMS solutions with open science compatibility as a key criterion
• Develop a data management plan aligned with FAIR principles
• Identify initial pilot projects with engaged research teams

Phase 2: Core Integration (Months 4-9)

• Implement ELN for experimental documentation and protocol management
• Deploy LIMS for sample and reagent tracking
• Establish basic automated data pipelines for common instruments
• Integrate with institutional OSF instance for project management

Phase 3: Advanced Optimization (Months 10-18)

• Develop sophisticated workflow automation for complex analyses
• Implement AI/ML tools for data analysis and prediction
• Establish robust data sharing protocols and quality control measures
• Expand integration to include external collaborators

Addressing Implementation Challenges

The transition to integrated open science platforms presents several challenges that must be proactively addressed:

Technical Challenges:

• Legacy data integration: Develop migration strategies for historical data
• System interoperability: Ensure compatibility between different platforms through APIs
• Data standardization: Establish community standards for materials data representation

Cultural Challenges:

• Researcher adoption: Provide training and demonstrate clear benefits
• Incentive alignment: Recognize and reward open science practices
• Collaboration mindset: Shift from competitive to collaborative research models

Recent initiatives in psychology demonstrate that effective open science implementation requires coordinated efforts across multiple stakeholders, including individuals, organizations, institutions, publishers, and funders [55]. Similar coordinated approaches will be essential for materials informatics.

The integration of ELN, LIMS, and automated data pipelines represents a transformative opportunity to operationalize open science principles in materials informatics research. This infrastructure enables significant reductions in R&D cycles, shortened time-to-market, and decreased costs while simultaneously enhancing research transparency, reproducibility, and collaboration [51]. As materials science continues to embrace AI and machine learning approaches [5], the availability of high-quality, FAIR-compliant data becomes increasingly critical for training accurate predictive models.

The future of materials informatics depends on modular, interoperable AI systems, standardised FAIR data, and cross-disciplinary collaboration [5]. By addressing current challenges related to data quality, metadata completeness, and semantic ontologies, the field can unlock transformative advances in areas such as nanocomposites, MOFs, and adaptive materials. The integrated ELN-LIMS framework provides the necessary foundation for this advancement, creating a continuous cycle of data generation, analysis, and sharing that accelerates discovery while enhancing research integrity.

As funding mandates and policy environments evolve [38], the implementation of robust open science infrastructure ensures that materials informatics research remains transparent, reproducible, and impactful. The organizations that embrace this integrated approach will position themselves at the forefront of materials innovation while contributing to a more open, collaborative scientific ecosystem.

Navigating the Roadblocks: Strategies for Effective and Sustainable Implementation

The open science movement, championing principles of accessibility, accountability, and reproducibility, has fundamentally reshaped the landscape of materials science research [39]. This paradigm shift towards systematic knowledge extraction from materials datasets is embodied in the field of materials informatics (MI), which applies data-centric approaches and machine learning (ML) to accelerate the discovery and design of new materials [5] [1]. However, a significant roadblock often impedes this progress: data sparsity. In the context of MI, sparsity refers to datasets where a high proportion of values are missing, zeros, or placeholders, creating a scenario where the available data is insufficient for robust statistical analysis or reliable model training [58]. This sparsity is particularly prevalent in legacy data—historical experimental records, computational simulations, and characterization data—which is often unstructured, heterogeneous, and incomplete.

The challenges of sparse data are exacerbated by the unique nature of materials science data, which is often high-dimensional, noisy, and biased [1]. Unlike data-rich domains like social media or e-commerce, materials research frequently deals with small, expensive-to-acquire datasets, where traditional ML models risk overfitting or producing misleading results [59]. The strategic value of overcoming this sparsity cannot be overstated; it is key to compressing R&D cycles from years to weeks, enabling the inverse design of materials (designing materials from desired properties), and ultimately fostering the collaborative, open ecosystem that open science envisions [39] [59]. This guide details practical, actionable techniques for curating sparse legacy data and generating new, high-quality datasets to power advanced materials informatics.

Defining and Diagnosing Data Sparsity

Quantitative Measures of Sparsity

Data sparsity is quantitatively defined as the proportion of a dataset that contains no meaningful information. For a matrix or dataset, sparsity is calculated as the fraction of zero or missing values over the total number of entries [58]. A dataset with 5% non-zero values has a sparsity of 0.95, or 95%. This metric can be easily computed to diagnose the severity of the problem.

The Impact of Sparse Data on Materials Research

Sparsity negatively impacts nearly every stage of the materials informatics pipeline [58]:

• Storage Inefficiencies: Traditional databases waste memory storing zeros and nulls explicitly.
• Computational Complexity: Algorithms perform unnecessary calculations on zero values, slowing down analysis.
• Statistical and Analytical Implications: Sparse features can skew distributions, lower the signal-to-noise ratio, and lead to model overfitting.

Performance benchmarks demonstrate that specialized sparse matrix operations can yield significant computational advantages. In one test, a sparse matrix multiplication was over four times faster than its dense counterpart for a matrix with ~95% sparsity [58]. This performance gap widens as dataset size and sparsity increase.

Techniques for Curating Sparse Legacy Data

Curating legacy data involves transforming existing, often messy, data into a structured, analysis-ready format. The following methodologies are essential for this process.

Data Cleaning and Curation Protocols

The initial step involves a rigorous process of data auditing and cleaning. Best practices, as highlighted in materials informatics curricula, include [60]:

• Audit and Profiling: Systematically inventory all data sources, identifying variables, formats, and a preliminary assessment of missing value patterns.
• Handling Missing Data:
  • Identification: Distinguish between true zeros, non-applicable fields, and missing data.
  • Removal: For features with extreme sparsity (>98%), consider complete removal, as they offer little signal and can introduce noise [58].
  • Imputation: For features with lower sparsity, employ imputation techniques to fill gaps. The choice of method depends on data nature and volume.
• Standardization and Normalization: Convert units to a consistent system (e.g., SI units) and scale numerical features to prevent models from being biased by variable magnitude.

Table 1: Evaluation of Imputation Techniques for Sparse Materials Data

Technique	Mechanism	Best For	Advantages	Limitations
Mean/Median Imputation	Replaces missing values with the feature's mean or median.	Low-dimensional data; missing completely at random.	Simple, fast.	Distorts variance and covariance; can introduce bias.
k-Nearest Neighbors (KNN) Imputation	Uses values from 'k' most similar complete records.	Datasets with underlying clustering; mixed data types.	Preserves data variability better than mean.	Computationally intensive for large datasets; sensitive to choice of 'k'.
Model-Based Imputation	Uses a predictive model (e.g., regression, random forest) to estimate missing values.	Complex, high-dimensional datasets with correlated features.	Can model complex relationships; high accuracy.	Risk of overfitting; complex to implement.
Matrix Factorization	Decomposes the data matrix to infer missing entries (e.g., using Truncated SVD).	Highly sparse matrices like user-item interactions or composition-property maps.	Effective for high-dimensional data; captures latent factors.	Assumes a low-rank latent structure.

Dimensionality Reduction and Feature Engineering

Dimensionality reduction is a critical weapon against the "curse of dimensionality," which is acutely felt in sparse data [61]. By projecting data into a lower-dimensional space, these techniques reduce noise and computational load.

• Truncated Singular Value Decomposition (SVD): A specialized version of SVD for sparse matrices that effectively identifies the most important latent features [58].

• Autoencoders: Neural networks trained to compress data into a low-dimensional code and then reconstruct the input. They are powerful for non-linear dimensionality reduction and can learn meaningful representations from sparse input [59].

• Feature Hashing (The "Hashing Trick"): Converts text or categorical data into a fixed-dimensional vector, effectively controlling dimensionality without the need to maintain a growing vocabulary [58].

The workflow for curating legacy data is a systematic sequence of these techniques, designed to maximize data utility while mitigating the problems introduced by sparsity.

Techniques for Generating High-Quality Datasets

When legacy data is too sparse or non-existent, proactive generation of new, high-quality datasets becomes necessary. The open science movement, with its emphasis on Open Data, provides a philosophical and practical foundation for this effort [39].

Active Learning and High-Throughput Methods

These strategies focus on making the data acquisition process more efficient and targeted.

• Active Learning: This is an iterative process where a model selectively queries the most informative data points for experimentation, thereby maximizing knowledge gain per experiment [1].
  • Train an initial model on available (sparse) data.
  • Use an acquisition function (e.g., maximum uncertainty, expected improvement) to identify the most valuable new experiments.
  • Perform the selected experiments and add the results to the training set.
  • Retrain the model and repeat.
• High-Throughput Virtual Screening (HTVS): Leverages computational simulations (e.g., density functional theory, molecular dynamics) to rapidly generate property data for thousands or millions of material candidates (e.g., molecules, crystal structures) in silico [1]. This creates large, dense datasets for initial screening before committing to physical experiments.

Data Augmentation and Synthetic Data Generation

These techniques artificially expand the size and diversity of training datasets.

• Synthetic Data via Generative Models: Models like Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) and Variational Autoencoders (VAEs) can learn the underlying distribution of existing materials data and generate new, plausible molecular structures or material compositions with specified properties [59].
• Physics-Informed Data Augmentation: Incorporates known physical laws and constraints into the data generation process. This ensures that synthetic data is not just statistically similar but also physically consistent, which is crucial for scientific validity [59]. For example, augmenting a dataset of stress-strain curves by applying transformations that respect thermodynamic principles.

The Rise of Autonomous Discovery Systems

A frontier approach involves fully autonomous AI systems that close the loop between prediction and experimentation. Systems like "Sparks of Acceleration" can execute an entire scientific discovery cycle—generating hypotheses, designing experiments, and analyzing results—without human intervention [59]. These systems are capable of curating their own training data and self-improving, effectively generating high-quality, focused datasets for complex problems at an unprecedented pace.

The relationship between these dataset generation techniques and the core principles of open science creates a virtuous cycle, accelerating discovery and ensuring broader community access to high-quality data.

Successfully addressing data sparsity requires a suite of software tools and platforms. The following table catalogs key resources aligned with open-source and open-science principles.

Table 2: Research Reagent Solutions for Data Sparsity

Tool Category	Example Software/Libraries	Primary Function in Sparsity Context
Data Handling & Storage	scipy.sparse (Python), Apache Cassandra, HBase	Provides efficient data structures (CSR, CSC) for storing and computing with sparse matrices without inflating memory usage [58].
Machine Learning & Dimensionality Reduction	scikit-learn (Python), PyTorch, TensorFlow	Implements algorithms like Truncated SVD, Lasso regression, and neural networks (Autoencoders, GANs) designed for or robust to sparse data [58] [59].
High-Throughput Computation	High-performance computing (HPC) clusters, workflow managers (e.g., FireWorks, AiiDA)	Enables large-scale virtual screening campaigns to generate dense datasets [1].
Open Data Repositories	The Materials Project, NOMAD, Materials Data Facility	Provides standardized, community-wide data sources that can be aggregated to reduce sparsity in individual studies. Adherence to FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) principles is critical [5] [39].
Electronic Lab Notebooks (ELNs) & LIMS	Labguru, Benchling, commercial LIMS	Improves the structure and completeness of new experimental data at the point of capture, preventing future legacy data problems [1].

The challenge of data sparsity is a significant but surmountable barrier to the full realization of open science in materials informatics. By adopting a systematic approach—combining rigorous curation of legacy data through cleaning, imputation, and dimensionality reduction with proactive generation of new data via active learning, high-throughput screening, and generative AI—researchers can build the high-quality, dense datasets required for powerful, predictive models. The ongoing development of open data infrastructures, standardized formats, and collaborative platforms will further empower the community to aggregate sparse data into a rich, collective knowledge base. Mastering these techniques is not merely a technical exercise; it is a fundamental prerequisite for accelerating the transition from materials discovery to deployment, ultimately fueling innovation across industries from healthcare to energy.

The open science movement is fundamentally reshaping the research landscape, promoting a culture where data, findings, and tools are shared openly to accelerate scientific discovery. Within materials informatics—a field applying data-centric approaches and machine learning to materials science R&D—this shift holds particular promise [1]. The idealized goal is to invert the traditional R&D process, moving from designing materials given desired properties rather than merely characterizing existing ones [1]. However, the path to this future is obstructed by significant cultural and intellectual property (IP) hurdles. Culturally, researchers often face a "siloed" mentality, while institutionally, IP concerns can stifle the very collaborations that drive innovation. This guide provides a strategic framework for researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals to overcome these barriers, enabling them to participate fully in the open science ecosystem and harness its transformative potential for materials informatics.

Diagnosing the Barriers to Collaboration

Successful collaboration requires a clear understanding of the common obstacles. These can be categorized into cultural-internal and structural-IP barriers.

Cultural and Internal Barriers

Cultural barriers often stem from deeply ingrained organizational habits and individual mindsets. Key barriers include:

• "Not Invented Here" (NIH) Syndrome: A tendency to reject solutions or ideas originating from external sources, often rooted in a desire to maintain internal control or a belief in internal superiority [62].
• Lack of Trust and Respect: Mutual trust is the bedrock of collaboration. Its absence, which can arise from cultural, professional, or disciplinary differences, undermines the foundation for sharing ideas and data [63].
• Knowledge Deficits and Information Silos: Teams often lack a basic understanding of their colleagues' disciplines, creating a communication gap. Furthermore, information hoarding and poorly managed knowledge systems prevent the effective flow of tacit knowledge [63].
• Poor Listening Skills: Ineffective collaboration is often marked by team members who are inattentive, interrupt frequently, or dismiss others' ideas without fully considering them [63].

Structural and Intellectual Property Barriers

• IP Management Concerns: A primary structural barrier is the fear that open collaboration will force the relinquishment of valuable intellectual property or reveal proprietary information to competitors [62]. Effective strategies are required to manage this risk.
• Misuse of Tools and Data: The implementation of collaborative platforms and AI tools can fail if users lack the training to use them correctly, leading to wasted resources and disillusionment with open approaches [62].
• Data Standardization Challenges: In fields like drug discovery, a lack of standardized data (e.g., handling of tautomers, inconsistent assay units) creates significant friction in integrating disparate datasets, which is a prerequisite for effective collaboration [64].

Table 1: Summary of Key Collaboration Barriers and Their Impacts

Barrier Category	Specific Barrier	Primary Impact
Cultural & Internal	Not Invented Here (NIH) Syndrome	Suppresses external innovation, reinvents the wheel
	Lack of Trust and Respect	Creates a defensive atmosphere, inhibits open dialogue
	Knowledge Deficits & Silos	Prevents cross-pollination of ideas, causes miscommunication
	Poor Listening Skills	Leads to misunderstandings, makes team members feel undervalued
Structural & IP	IP Management Concerns	Stifles partnerships for fear of losing competitive advantage
	Misuse of Collaboration Tools	Wastes resources and erodes confidence in open innovation
	Data Standardization Issues	Prevents data fusion and makes AI/ML models less effective

Strategic Framework for Overcoming Cultural Hurdles

Overcoming cultural resistance requires a deliberate and multi-faceted strategy focused on building a cohesive, collaborative culture.

Fostering a Collaborative Mindset

• Shift from Problem-Solving to Solution-Finding: Actively incentivize employees who deliver results, regardless of whether the solution was found internally or externally. This helps to dismantle the NIH syndrome by rewarding outcomes over ownership [62].
• Embrace and Champion Diversity: Culturally diverse teams are proven to be more creative and innovative. As a leader, you must frame these differences as a strength to be leveraged, not a obstacle to be overcome [65]. This involves creating opportunities for team members to learn about each other's backgrounds and work styles.
• Promote Psychological Safety: Cultivate an environment where team members feel safe to express work-related thoughts and ideas without fear of negative personal criticism [63]. This is a prerequisite for open communication and risk-taking.

Implementing Practical Protocols

• Structured Interaction Protocols: Facilitate regular, structured interactions across different functions and teams. For leaders, this ensures alignment on goals and strategies. For multidisciplinary teams, this helps members understand one another's roles, responsibilities, and work practices, fostering effective collaboration [63].
• Active Listening and Communication Workshops: Implement practical training sessions where teams can practice active listening. Key behaviors include being fully present, keeping an open mind, avoiding interruptions, and paraphrasing to confirm understanding [63].
• Create Shared Goals and Vision: Unite the team by rallying them around a shared vision or a common cause, such as developing a technology that saves lives or achieving a collective revenue target. This aligns efforts and helps bridge cultural divides [65].

Navigating Intellectual Property in Collaborative Environments

IP does not have to be a barrier; it can be managed to enable secure and productive collaboration.

Evolving IP Management Strategies

The traditional defensive stance on IP is evolving. In the current rapid innovation cycle, the goal is often to "over-innovate" competitors rather than to hide all developments from them [62]. A more open approach to IP can, counterintuitively, build trust and inspire stakeholders, as demonstrated by Elon Musk's decision to open Tesla's patent portfolio [62].

Models and Agreements for Shared Innovation

• Shared IP Models: In collaborations like the BMW and Toyota partnership, the companies agreed on equal ownership of the technology developed during their joint project. This allowed both to benefit while protecting their respective pre-existing IP [62].
• Tailored Legal Agreements: When issuing open innovation challenges, it is possible to use legal agreements that protect the sponsoring organization's identity and IP interests. Platforms like HeroX provide guidelines for selecting the appropriate IP structure for a given campaign [62].
• Unified Data Models (UDMs): To overcome data standardization barriers, projects can implement a UDM like the BioChemUDM used in drug discovery. This model provides a common framework for representing chemical and biological data, allowing organizations to share information seamlessly without revealing proprietary data structures. It standardizes the representation of complex concepts like tautomers, ensuring that all parties are interpreting data consistently [64].

Table 2: IP and Data Management Strategies for Open Collaboration

Strategy	Key Mechanism	Applicable Context
Shared IP Model	Partners have equal ownership of newly developed IP.	Joint R&D projects between two or more organizations.
Tailored Legal Agreements	Legal frameworks protect core IP while opening specific challenges.	Crowdsourcing, open innovation briefs, and prize competitions.
Unified Data Model (UDM)	Standardizes data representation and sharing protocols without revealing core IP.	Collaborations requiring integration of disparate chemical/biological datasets.
Open IP Pledges	Making certain patents freely available to the public.	Building industry-wide trust and establishing a new technology platform.

The Materials Informatics Toolkit: Enabling Technologies for Collaboration

The technical infrastructure of materials informatics provides the essential tools to make open, collaborative science a practical reality.

Key Research Reagent Solutions

The field relies on a ecosystem of digital tools and platforms that serve as the modern "research reagents" for data-driven science.

Table 3: Essential Digital Tools for Collaborative Materials Informatics

Tool Category	Function	Examples & Notes
AI/ML Software & Platforms	Accelerates material design & discovery; optimizes research processes.	Includes web-based platforms for non-experts and advanced software for experts [5].
Materials Data Repositories	Provides open-access, standardized data for training AI/ML models.	Essential for building predictive models; requires FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) principles [1] [5].
Cloud-Based Research Platforms	Hosts data and tools, enabling seamless collaboration across institutions.	CDD Vault is an example used in drug discovery for managing data and enabling collaboration [66].
Unified Data Models (UDMs)	Standardizes data representation from different sources for AI readiness.	BioChemUDM handles tautomers, stereochemistry, and assay data normalization [64].
High-Throughput Virtual Screening (HTVS)	Rapidly computationally screens thousands of material candidates.	Reduces the number of necessary lab experiments, saving time and resources [1].

Experimental Protocol: Implementing a Collaborative Materials Informatics Workflow

The following workflow diagram and protocol outline a standardized process for a collaborative materials discovery project, integrating both human and technical systems.

Diagram 1: Collaborative informatics workflow.

Title: Collaborative Materials Informatics Workflow

Objective: To discover a novel porous material (e.g., a Metal-Organic Framework or MOF) for enhanced carbon capture through a collaborative, multi-institutional effort.

Step-by-Step Protocol:

• Project Inception & Goal Definition: The collaboration begins by defining a shared vision [65]. This involves setting clear, measurable target properties for the material (e.g., COâ‚‚ adsorption capacity, selectivity, stability).
• Team Formation & IP Agreement: A cross-functional team is assembled, including computational scientists, experimentalists, and data specialists from participating organizations. A critical first step is to establish a formal IP agreement, opting for a shared IP model for newly generated data and structures to build trust and define ownership [62].
• Data Curation & Standardization: Internal and public data (e.g., from repositories like the Cambridge Structural Database) are aggregated. A Unified Data Model (UDM) is employed to canonicalize chemical structures (e.g., handle tautomers) and normalize assay units, ensuring all AI models are trained on consistent, high-quality data [64].
• AI/ML Model Development: Using the curated data, the team develops predictive models. These can be traditional computational models, pure AI/ML models for speed, or, increasingly, hybrid models that combine the interpretability of physics-based models with the power of AI [5].
• High-Throughput Virtual Screening (HTVS): The trained model is used to screen hundreds of thousands of virtual material candidates in silico [1]. This narrows the candidate pool from a vast number of possibilities to a manageable shortlist of the most promising candidates for synthesis.
• Lab Validation & Feedback: The shortlisted candidates are synthesized and tested in the lab by experimental partners. This real-world performance data is then fed back into the central database (Step 3), creating an iterative loop that continuously improves the AI models [1].
• Data Sharing & Publication: Following the principles of open science, the final validated data, and the resulting material performance characteristics are published in an open-access repository with a FAIR-compliant license, contributing to the broader scientific community [5].

The transition to a more open, collaborative paradigm in materials informatics is not merely a technical shift but a cultural and structural one. The hurdles of "Not Invented Here" syndrome, fear of IP loss, and dysfunctional data management are significant but surmountable. By deliberately fostering a culture of trust and psychological safety, implementing strategic IP frameworks like shared models and Unified Data Models, and leveraging the powerful toolkit of AI platforms and FAIR data repositories, the research community can unlock unprecedented acceleration in innovation. The future of materials discovery lies in our ability to collaborate effectively, turning individual expertise into collective breakthroughs that benefit science and society as a whole.

The adoption of the open science movement is transforming scientific practice with the goal of enhancing the transparency, productivity, and reproducibility of research [67]. In the specific domain of materials informatics, this shift coincides with a data-driven paradigm that generates substantial volumes of complex, heterogeneous data daily [68] [69]. This creates a fundamental challenge: without standardized vocabularies and unified knowledge, sharing data and metadata between different research cohorts becomes exceptionally difficult, reducing data availability and crippling interoperability between systems [68] [69]. Ontologies—graph-based semantic data models that define and standardize concepts in a given field—have emerged as a powerful solution to these challenges [68]. By adding a layer of semantic description through non-hierarchical relationships, ontologies facilitate data comprehension, analysis, sharing, reuse, and semantic reasoning, thereby playing a pivotal role in achieving the FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) that are crucial for modern research [68].

This technical guide examines the critical role of precise ontologies in ensuring data quality and interoperability within the context of open science in materials informatics. We will explore established frameworks, detailed methodologies for implementation, and specific tools that researchers can employ to overcome the pressing issue of terminological inconsistency, which currently hinders collaboration, innovation, and data reuse [68].

The Imperative for Ontologies in Materials Science

The Problem of Terminological Inconsistency

Materials science communities, such as those in photovoltaics (PV) and Synchrotron X-Ray Diffraction (SXRD), exemplify the problems caused by a lack of terminological consistency. In photovoltaics, assets like PV Power Plants frequently change hands, often resulting in data and information loss during transactions [68]. Furthermore, PV instrumentation is highly non-uniform, making it difficult to link raw data to what it represents in the physical world. The existence of multiple software packages for photovoltaic modeling (e.g., pvlib-python, PVSyst, and SAM), each with its own incompatible input data formats, places a large maintenance burden on developers and researchers who must handle translations on a case-by-case basis [68].

Similarly, in Synchrotron X-Ray Diffraction, next-generation sources produce highly intense X-Ray beams that generate continuous, large data streams—reaching up to an anticipated 500 TB per week at a single beamline post-upgrade [68]. These data are highly multimodal, encompassing images, spectra, diffractograms, and extensive metadata. The existence of numerous variable-naming conventions across different data formats and volumes prevents laboratories from easily understanding each other's data outputs, making automated analysis exceptionally difficult [68]. Both communities suffer from the same underlying issue: a lack of terminological consistency that hinders collaboration and innovation.

From Taxonomies to Ontologies

Historically, taxonomies were considered the best solution for terminological inconsistency. However, taxonomies lack the semantic capacity to fully describe complex relationships between concepts, thereby restricting the level of reasoning and analysis that teams can gain from their adoption [68]. Ontologies offer a superior alternative by mapping multiple terms to the same inherent concept and accommodating varying opinions on terminology. They can be utilized across multiple contexts and domains without redefinition, promoting consistency and encouraging cross-collaborative research [68]. Furthermore, their ability to be serialized into popular linked data formats like JSON-LD (JavaScript Object Notation for Linked Data) allows the scientific community to easily understand and modify them as necessary [68].

A Framework for Precision: The Materials Data Science Ontology (MDS-Onto)

Core Architecture and Components

The Materials Data Science Ontology (MDS-Onto) provides a unified, automated framework for developing interoperable and modular ontologies for Materials Data Science [68]. Its primary purpose is to simplify ontology terms matching by establishing a semantic bridge up to the Basic Formal Ontology (BFO), which is an ISO Standard [68]. This framework offers key recommendations on how ontologies should be positioned within the semantic web, what knowledge representation language is recommended, and where ontologies should be published online to boost their findability and interoperability.

Two fundamental components of the MDS-Onto framework are:

• FAIRmaterials: A bilingual package for ontology creation.
• FAIRLinked: A tool for FAIR data creation [68].

To build MDS-Onto, specific terms and relationships were connected with pre-existing generalized concepts, using the Platform Material Digital core ontology (PMDco) and PROV-O as a bridge to connect Material Science terminology up to the ISO Standard BFO and then to W3C and Schema.org [68]. This modular approach simplifies the process of terms mapping and matching to mid- and top-level ontologies, reducing the learning curve necessary to create interoperable ontologies.

Practical Applications: Photovoltaics and SXRD

The practical capabilities of the framework are showcased through two exemplar domain ontologies:

• Synchrotron X-Ray Diffraction (SXRD) Ontology: Addresses the challenge of variable-naming conventions across the diversity of data formats and the sheer volume and variety of data produced at facilities like the Advanced Photon Source synchrotron facility at Argonne National Laboratory [68].
• Photovoltaics (PV) Ontology: Aims to unify terminology across all levels of the PV supply chain, from research applications to field data collection, thereby addressing issues of incompatible data formats and lost information [68].

The following diagram illustrates the core architecture of the MDS-Onto framework and its positioning within the semantic web.

MDS-Onto Architecture and Semantic Bridge

Methodologies for Ontology Development and Extension

An Automated Framework for Ontology Creation

The MDS-Onto framework provides a structured methodology for building interoperable ontologies. The process can be broken down into several key phases, which are summarized in the table below and then described in detail.

Table 1: Key Phases in the MDS-Onto Ontology Development Lifecycle

Phase	Primary Objective	Key Activities	Outputs
Positioning & Scoping	Align the ontology with the semantic web and define its domain coverage.	Determine the ontology's position within the semantic web; define the scope of the domain-specific ontology.	A scoping document; positioning statement.
Terminology Harvesting	Collect and formalize the core concepts and relationships within the target domain.	Extract terms from domain literature, databases, and expert consultations; identify key relationships.	A structured vocabulary of terms and relationships.
Semantic Bridging	Ensure interoperability by aligning the domain ontology with upper-level ontologies.	Map domain-specific terms to mid- and top-level ontologies (e.g., PMDco, PROV-O, BFO).	A mapped ontology with semantic links to BFO.
Implementation & Serialization	Create a machine-readable ontology and tools for FAIR data creation.	Formalize the ontology in a recommended knowledge representation language; develop tools like FAIRmaterials and FAIRLinked.	OWL files; FAIRmaterials package; FAIRLinked tool.
Publication & Maintenance	Boost the ontology's findability and facilitate community use and evolution.	Publish the ontology online in a dedicated repository; establish a process for community feedback and updates.	A published, versioned ontology; a maintenance plan.

A Method for Extending Existing Ontologies

For domains where foundational ontologies already exist, a critical methodological challenge is their systematic extension. One investigated method uses phrase-based topic modeling and formal topical concept analysis on unstructured text within the domain to suggest additional concepts and axioms for the ontology [69]. This data-driven approach helps ensure that the ontology evolves to reflect the actual language and concepts found in the contemporary scientific literature. The process involves:

• Data Collection: Gathering a corpus of relevant, unstructured text, such as titles and abstracts from domain-specific publications.
• Topic Modeling: Applying algorithms to identify latent themes or topics within the text corpus.
• Concept Analysis: Formally analyzing the extracted topics and phrases to identify candidate concepts and relationships that are not yet present in the existing ontology.
• Expert Validation: Presenting the suggested concepts and axioms to domain experts for validation and integration into the ontology in a semantically consistent manner [69].

An experiment demonstrating this approach successfully extended two nanotechnology ontologies using approximately 600 titles and abstracts, showcasing its practical utility for enriching ontological coverage [69].

The following workflow diagram illustrates the process for extending an existing ontology using text mining and expert validation.

Ontology Extension via Text Mining

For researchers and professionals in materials informatics and drug development embarking on ontology-related work, a suite of essential tools and resources is available. The following table details key solutions and their primary functions.

Table 2: Research Reagent Solutions for Ontology Development and FAIR Data

Tool / Resource Name	Type	Primary Function	Relevance to Research
FAIRmaterials	Software Package	A bilingual package for creating ontologies within the MDS-Onto framework.	Simplifies the technical process of ontology development for domain experts, enabling them to build BFO-compliant ontologies without deep expertise in semantic web technologies.
FAIRLinked	Software Tool	A tool for creating FAIR data.	Enables researchers to serialize their experimental data and metadata using the standardized naming conventions and structures defined in their ontologies, directly operationalizing FAIR principles.
JSON-LD	Data Format	A JavaScript Object Notation for Linked Data, a lightweight linked data format.	Serves as a primary serialization format for ontological data, making it easy for researchers to share, publish, and interconnect their datasets in a machine-actionable way.
Open Biomedical Ontologies (OBO) Foundry	Ontology Library	A collection of interoperable ontologies extensively covering fields in the life sciences.	Provides a source of well-established, pre-existing ontologies (e.g., ChEBI, NCIt) that can be reused and integrated into domain-specific ontologies for materials informatics and drug development, saving time and ensuring community alignment.
Phrase-Based Topic Modeling Software	Analytical Method	A natural language processing technique for identifying concepts from unstructured text.	Supports the methodology for systematically extending existing ontologies by discovering new candidate concepts from the scientific literature, ensuring the ontology remains current and comprehensive.

Precise ontologies are not merely theoretical constructs but are practical, foundational elements that directly address the critical challenges of data quality and interoperability in modern materials informatics and drug development. By adopting frameworks like MDS-Onto and employing rigorous methodologies for ontology creation and extension, the research community can fully embrace the principles of open science. This commitment to semantic standardization is a crucial step toward building a more collaborative, efficient, and reproducible research ecosystem, ultimately accelerating scientific discovery and innovation.

The advent of high-throughput experimentation and computational screening has transformed materials science into a data-rich discipline, characterized by massive datasets with numerous variables [70]. This high-dimensional data landscape, while rich with information, presents significant challenges including noise accumulation, spurious correlations, and incidental endogeneity that can compromise model reliability and reproducibility [71]. Within the broader context of the open science movement, which emphasizes transparency, accessibility, and reproducibility in research, addressing these data challenges becomes not merely technical but fundamental to advancing credible materials informatics [67] [72]. The movement advocates for practices such as sharing code, data, and research materials, which are essential for validating findings derived from complex, noisy datasets [72]. This technical review examines the core challenges of noisy, high-dimensional data in materials research and provides frameworks for developing robust models that align with open science principles to ensure scientific reliability and societal relevance.

Characterizing Data Challenges in Materials Informatics

Taxonomy of High-Dimensional Data Problems

The analysis of high-dimensional materials data introduces specific statistical and computational challenges that distinguish it from traditional small-scale data analysis. These challenges are exacerbated when data are aggregated from multiple sources, a common scenario in open science initiatives that promote data sharing [71] [67].

Table 1: Key Challenges in High-Dimensional Materials Data Analysis

Challenge	Statistical Impact	Computational Impact
Noise Accumulation	High-dimensional feature spaces cause aggregation of noise across many variables, potentially overwhelming the true signal [71].	Increases requirement for robust regularization techniques and larger sample sizes for reliable model training [71].
Spurious Correlations	Unrelated covariates may appear statistically significant due to random chance in high-dimensional spaces, leading to false discoveries [71].	Necessitates implementation of multiple testing corrections and careful validation protocols, requiring additional computational resources.
Incidental Endogeneity	Many unrelated features may correlate with residual noise, introducing bias in parameter estimates [71].	Complicates model estimation and requires specialized algorithms to address endogenous bias.
Data Heterogeneity	Data aggregated from multiple sources (different labs, equipment, time points) introduces variability that can obscure true patterns [71].	Requires sophisticated normalization techniques and domain adaptation methods, increasing preprocessing complexity.

Problem Landscapes in Materials Optimization

Materials optimization problems often exhibit characteristic landscape types that determine the appropriate analytical approach. Bayesian Optimization (BO) simulations have demonstrated that problem landscape significantly affects optimization outcomes, particularly with noisy data [73].

• Needle-in-a-Haystack Landscapes: Represented by functions like the Ackley function, these landscapes characterize searches for unusual materials properties highly sensitive to input parameters. Examples include searching for auxetic materials with negative Poisson's ratio or materials with high thermoelectric figure of merit (ZT) [73].
• False Optimal Landscapes: Represented by functions like the Hartmann function, these contain multiple competing high-performing configurations alongside a global optimum. This landscape typifies process optimization problems such as optimizing deposition parameters for perovskite solar cells or identifying optimal print parameters for enhanced manufacturing quality [73].

Methodological Framework for Robust Modeling

Bayesian Optimization for Noisy Experimental Conditions

Bayesian Optimization (BO) provides a powerful framework for guiding optimization tasks in noisy, experimental materials science. The method operates through two key components: a surrogate model (typically Gaussian Process Regression) that approximates the unknown objective function, and an acquisition function that determines the next evaluation points based on the surrogate model [73].

Table 2: Bayesian Optimization Components for Noisy Materials Data

Component	Function	Considerations for Noisy Data
Surrogate Model (GPR)	Provides probabilistic predictions of objective function with uncertainty estimates [73].	Gaussian Process Regression hyperparameters must reflect actual experimental noise levels. Noise variance setting is critical for accurate uncertainty quantification [73].
Acquisition Functions	Balances exploration of uncertain regions with exploitation of promising areas [73].	Expected Improvement (EI) and Upper Confidence Bound (UCB) perform differently under various noise conditions and problem landscapes [73].
Batch Selection Methods	Enables parallel evaluation of multiple experimental conditions [73].	Particularly valuable for experimental materials research where parallel experimentation reduces total research time.
Exploration Hyperparameter	Controls tradeoff between exploration and exploration [73].	Requires careful tuning based on noise level and problem characteristics; significantly impacts optimization outcomes.

Data Preprocessing and Feature Selection Protocols

Effective preprocessing is essential for handling heterogeneous materials data from multiple sources, a common scenario in open science frameworks that aggregate data from public repositories [71].

Figure 1: Workflow for preprocessing noisy, high-dimensional materials data, addressing systematic biases and dimensionality challenges.

The preprocessing workflow addresses several critical issues in materials data:

• Systematic Bias Removal: Experimental variations in genomics (intensity effects, batch effects, dye effects) and other materials domains must be identified and corrected, as they can substantially impact measured values and lead to incorrect scientific conclusions [71].
• Domain-Specific Normalization: Techniques must be tailored to specific materials domains and measurement technologies to address variations across different experimental conditions and data sources [71].
• Feature Screening: Sure independence screening methods and regularization techniques help address noise accumulation by selecting relevant features and reducing the dimensionality of the feature space [71].
• Dimensionality Reduction: Methods such as PCA or autoencoders help combat spurious correlations by projecting data onto lower-dimensional spaces where true signals are more concentrated [71].

Experimental Protocol for Bayesian Optimization in Materials Research

For researchers implementing BO in experimental materials science, the following protocol provides a structured approach:

• Problem Formulation Stage:

  • Characterize the expected problem landscape (needle-in-haystack vs. false optimum) based on domain knowledge [73].
  • Define design variables (typically 3-6 parameters for experimental feasibility) and objective function [73].
  • Estimate experimental noise levels through preliminary replicates.

• BO Configuration:

  • Select appropriate acquisition function (UCB often performs well in experimental settings) [73].
  • Set exploration hyperparameters based on noise estimates and problem landscape.
  • Choose batch size compatible with parallel experimental capabilities.

• Implementation and Monitoring:

  • Conduct synthetic studies using test functions before real experiments to verify adequate experimental budget [73].
  • Implement visualization methods to track optimization progress in high-dimensional spaces [73].
  • Establish performance metrics relevant to both scientific goals and practical constraints.

The Open Science Context: Transparency and Reproducibility

The open science movement provides essential context for addressing data challenges in materials informatics, emphasizing two complementary forms of transparency [67]:

• Scientifically Relevant Transparency: Focused on practices that enable other researchers to reproduce and validate findings, including sharing data, code, and methodologies [67]. This is particularly crucial for noisy, high-dimensional data where analytical decisions significantly impact conclusions.
• Socially Relevant Transparency: Aimed at making scientific information accessible and usable to decision makers and the public [67]. This requires going beyond simple data sharing to provide interpretation and context for non-specialist audiences.

Open science practices directly address key challenges in materials informatics by promoting data standardization, shared computational infrastructure, and transparent reporting of analytical methods [40]. These practices are especially valuable for resolving issues of heterogeneity and experimental variation when aggregating datasets from multiple sources [71].

Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Table 3: Essential Computational Tools for Materials Informatics

Tool Category	Representative Examples	Primary Function
Data Repositories	Materials Project, NOMAD, AFLOW, OQMD [70]	Provide curated materials data for model training and validation following open science principles.
Bayesian Optimization Platforms	Custom implementations using Gaussian Process Regression [73]	Enable efficient optimization of experimental parameters in noisy, high-dimensional spaces.
Feature Selection Algorithms	Sure Independence Screening, Regularization methods (Lasso, Elastic Net) [71]	Address noise accumulation and spurious correlation by identifying relevant variables.
Cross-Validation Frameworks	k-fold cross-validation, leave-one-cluster-out cross-validation [70]	Ensure model robustness and prevent overfitting, especially critical with high-dimensional data.

Building robust models for noisy, high-dimensional data in materials science requires integrated methodological and philosophical approaches. Technical strategies including careful Bayesian Optimization configuration, comprehensive data preprocessing, and appropriate feature selection are essential for addressing fundamental challenges like noise accumulation and spurious correlations. These methodological approaches find both justification and enhancement within the open science framework, which promotes the transparency, reproducibility, and collaborative development necessary for validating models derived from complex materials data. As materials informatics continues to evolve, the integration of robust statistical methods with open science principles will be essential for generating reliable, actionable knowledge that benefits both scientific and broader societal stakeholders.

Sustainable Funding and Resource Allocation for Open Science Initiatives

Open Science (OS) represents a transformative approach to the scientific process, based on cooperative work and the diffusion of knowledge using digital technologies [39]. In the specific, high-stakes field of materials informatics—which applies data-centric approaches and machine learning to materials science research and development—the OS movement is particularly critical [1] [5]. Materials informatics enables the accelerated discovery, design, and optimization of advanced materials by systematically extracting knowledge from materials datasets that are too large or complex for traditional human reasoning [39] [74]. The fundamental challenge, however, lies in establishing sustainable funding and resource allocation models that support the open sharing of research outputs, including data, code, and publications, while maintaining the pace of innovation. This guide addresses this challenge by providing researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals with actionable strategies for securing and managing resources for Open Science initiatives within the materials informatics ecosystem, where the global market for external provision of materials informatics is projected to grow at a CAGR of 9.0% to reach US$725 million by 2034 [1].

Funding Models for Open Science: Mechanisms and Applications

Traditional and Emerging Funding Mechanisms

A diverse array of funding mechanisms supports Open Science practices, each with distinct operational frameworks, advantages, and limitations. Understanding these models is essential for researchers and institutions to make informed decisions about resource allocation. The following table summarizes the primary funding mechanisms available for Open Science initiatives.

Table 1: Sustainable Funding Models for Open Science Initiatives

Funding Mechanism	Operational Framework	Key Advantages	Potential Limitations	Relevance to Materials Informatics
Article Processing Charges (APCs)	Authors or institutions pay a fee to cover publication costs, enabling immediate open access [75] [76].	Enables immediate open access; Widely adopted model [76].	Can create barriers for researchers with limited funding; Requires careful management to avoid "double-dipping" in hybrid journals [75] [77].	Suitable for publishing data-driven materials discoveries, provided APC funds are available.
Institutional Support & Memberships	Direct funding, subsidies, or memberships provided by academic institutions or research organizations [75] [77].	Provides stable, institutional backing; Can cover infrastructure and data curation costs.	Dependent on institutional budgets and priorities; May not cover all operational needs.	Supports institutional data repositories and high-performance computing resources essential for materials data analysis.
Consortia & Cooperative Models	Multiple stakeholders (libraries, institutions, funders) pool resources to share financial burdens [75] [77].	Distributes costs across members; Promotes community-driven sustainability.	Requires complex negotiation and governance; Can be challenging to initiate.	Models like SCOAP³ are proven; applicable for shared materials data infrastructure and publishing platforms [75].
Government & Foundation Grants	Direct funding from government agencies (e.g., Horizon Europe) or philanthropic foundations (e.g., Gates Foundation) [77] [78].	Often substantial and aligned with public good mandates; Can support large-scale infrastructure projects.	Highly competitive; Often tied to specific policy goals and reporting requirements.	Key for large-scale initiatives like the Materials Genome Initiative in the USA [14].
Crowdfunding & Community Funding	Raising funds directly from the public or community stakeholders via platforms like Kickstarter [77].	Engages the public directly; Can validate community interest in a research topic.	Uncertain and often insufficient for long-term projects; High administrative overhead.	Potential for specific, focused materials informatics projects with clear public appeal.
Freemium & Hybrid Models	Basic services are free, while premium features or content are paid [75] [77].	Generates revenue while maintaining some open access.	Can complicate subscription negotiations; Does not fully align with OS principles.	Less ideal for core research outputs but possible for advanced analytics platforms.

Effective resource allocation in Open Science extends beyond covering publication costs. Sustainable investment must prioritize the entire research data lifecycle to ensure that materials data is Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable (FAIR) [78]. Key allocation priorities include:

• Data Curation and Management: Funding must support the professional curation of materials data, including the creation of rich metadata, which requires significant time and expertise [78]. This is particularly crucial in materials informatics, where data is often sparse, high-dimensional, and noisy [1].
• Digital Infrastructure and Services: Sustaining the physical infrastructures that host and preserve data—such as cloud-based platforms and data repositories—requires dedicated community efforts and sustained investment [39].
• Training and Capacity Building: Resources should be allocated to train researchers in data management, open science practices, and the use of specific informatics tools, ensuring that the community can fully leverage open resources [78].

The Materials Informatics Context: Market and Data Drivers

Market Growth and Scientific Impact

The push for sustainable Open Science funding is amplified by the rapid commercial growth of materials informatics. This field stands at the intersection of scientific advancement and market forces, making efficient resource allocation critical.

Table 2: Materials Informatics Market Overview and Projections

Metric	Value	Context and Significance
Global Market Size (2025)	USD 208.41 million (est.) [14] to USD 304.67 million (est.) [74]	Indicates a rapidly emerging field with high growth potential, though estimates vary by source.
Projected Market Size (2034)	USD 1,139.45 million [14] to USD 1,903.75 million [74]	Reflects strong confidence in the long-term adoption of data-driven materials science.
Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR)	20.80% [14] to 22.58% [74]	Significantly high growth rate, driven by integration of AI and machine learning.
Dominant Regional Market (2024)	North America (39.20% [14] to 42.63% [74] share)	Attributed to strong research infrastructure, presence of major companies, and government initiatives [74] [14].
Fastest Growing Region	Asia-Pacific [74] [14]	Driven by heavy investments in technology and science programs in countries like China, Japan, and India [74].
Leading End-Use Sector	Chemical & Pharmaceutical [74] [14]	These industries are heavy users of informatics to discover new molecules, drugs, and materials, speeding up R&D [74].

This market expansion is fueled by the core advantages of data-driven approaches, which include enhanced screening of material candidates, a significant reduction in the number of experiments needed, and the discovery of new materials or relationships that might be missed by traditional methods [1]. The integration of AI and machine learning allows for the analysis of extensive datasets from experiments and simulations, fundamentally shifting R&D away from slow, costly trial-and-error methods [74] [5].

Data Infrastructures and the Open Science Ecosystem

The vitality of data-driven materials science depends on a robust ecosystem of stakeholders, including academia, industry, governments, and the public [39]. Open Science contributes to this ecosystem by enabling replication, improving productivity, limiting redundancy, and creating a rich network of shared resources [78]. This is embodied in the vision of a "Materials Ultimate Search Engine" (MUSE), which relies on FAIR data and interoperable tools [39]. Progress hinges on resolving key challenges related to data relevance, completeness, standardization, acceptance, and longevity [39]. Funding initiatives must therefore target the development of standardized, open data repositories and the creation of modular, interoperable AI systems that can leverage this shared data [5].

Implementation Framework: Protocols for Sustainable Open Science

Transitioning to sustainable Open Science requires a structured approach. The following workflow outlines the key stages for implementing and managing funded Open Science projects, from securing resources to ensuring long-term impact.

Diagram 1: OS Project Implementation Workflow

Experimental Protocol for a Funded Open Science Project in Materials Informatics

This detailed protocol provides a methodology for conducting a typical Open Science project, such as the discovery of a sustainable battery material, from inception to dissemination.

• Phase 1: Project Scoping and Stakeholder Alignment

  • Objective: Define the scientific goal (e.g., identify a cobalt-free cathode material with target properties) and align it with the requirements of the chosen funding model (e.g., a consortium agreement or a grant with an open data mandate).
  • Procedure:
    • Conduct a literature review using open-access repositories and preprints to establish the state of the art [76].
    • Form a project governance committee including researchers, data scientists, and institutional resource managers.
    • Draft a Data Management Plan (DMP) that specifies how all research data will be made FAIR throughout the project lifecycle [78].

• Phase 2: Resource Mobilization and Infrastructure Setup

  • Objective: Secure and allocate funding while establishing the necessary technical infrastructure.
  • Procedure:
    • Finalize the budget, allocating funds for personnel (data curators, software engineers), computational resources, and open-access publication fees (APCs) [75] [77].
    • Provision cloud-based data storage and computing platforms that support collaborative work and large-scale data analysis [74].
    • Adopt or develop open-source software for materials modeling and machine learning (e.g., tools reviewed in [5]).

• Phase 3: Data Generation, Curation, and Modeling

  • Objective: Generate high-quality materials data and build predictive models using open science principles.
  • Procedure:
    • Perform high-throughput virtual screening or experiments, logging all data in electronic lab notebooks (ELN) with rich, standardized metadata [1] [39].
    • Apply data curation practices to clean, annotate, and structure the generated data, making it ready for public sharing.
    • Develop and train machine learning models (e.g., using deep tensor or Bayesian optimization) on the curated data to predict material properties [1] [14]. Emphasize the use of open-source libraries and frameworks.

• Phase 4: Dissemination and Impact Assessment

  • Objective: Share all research outputs and evaluate the project's success.
  • Procedure:
    • Deposit the final, curated dataset in a public, domain-specific repository (e.g., for materials science) with a persistent identifier (DOI) and under a Creative Commons license [76].
    • Publish the research article in a trusted open-access journal, paying the APC if required, and archive a preprint on a server like arXiv [76].
    • Monitor impact through metrics beyond citations, such as dataset downloads, reuse in other studies, and mentions in policy documents, as advocated by responsible research assessment (RRA) initiatives [78].

Successfully executing an Open Science project in materials informatics requires a suite of tangible resources and tools. The following table details the key "research reagents" – both data and software – that are essential for the field.

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for Materials Informatics

Tool/Resource Category	Specific Examples & Standards	Primary Function	Open Science Value
Data Repositories	Materials Project, NOMAD, AFLOW, Springer Nature's research data support [39] [76]	Host and preserve experimental and computational materials data; Ensure long-term access and citability via DOIs.	Provides the foundational data infrastructure for FAIR data sharing and reuse across the community.
Software & Modeling Platforms	Open-source ML libraries (e.g., scikit-learn, TensorFlow); Computational platforms for material modeling [5]	Enable data analysis, machine learning, and predictive modeling; Facilitate simulation and high-throughput screening.	Open-source tools ensure reproducibility, allow for community scrutiny, and lower barriers to entry.
Standardized Metadata	CIF (Crystallographic Information File), ThermoML; Domain-specific semantic ontologies [39] [5]	Describe materials data with consistent, machine-actionable metadata; Critical for data interoperability and reuse.	Enables data integration from different sources and is a prerequisite for automated data analysis.
Communication Tools	Preprint servers (e.g., arXiv), Open Journal Systems (OJS) [75] [76]	Facilitate rapid dissemination of research results prior to or after formal peer review.	Accelerates the speed of scientific communication and allows for open community feedback.
Identification Systems	Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs), ORCID iDs, CRediT taxonomy	Uniquely identify research outputs (articles, data, software) and contributor roles.	Enables precise attribution and credit for all research outputs, which is key to rewarding OS activities [78].

Sustainable funding and strategic resource allocation are not peripheral concerns but central pillars for advancing Open Science in materials informatics. The transition from a closed, subscription-shaped research landscape to an open, collaborative ecosystem requires a conscious shift in how projects are financed and evaluated. By leveraging diverse funding models—from consortia and government grants to institutional support—and by strategically allocating resources toward data infrastructure, curation, and training, the materials informatics community can fully harness the power of Open Science. This approach will accelerate the discovery of advanced materials, from sustainable battery components to novel pharmaceuticals, ensuring that scientific progress is efficient, transparent, and equitable. The recommendations and protocols outlined in this guide provide a actionable roadmap for researchers, institutions, and funders to collaboratively build this sustainable future.

Proof of Concept: Analyzing Impact, Business Models, and Future Trajectories

The global push towards open science is transforming research practices, promising enhanced transparency, collaboration, and accessibility of scientific knowledge. Within specialized fields like materials informatics and drug development, a critical question emerges: how can we effectively quantify whether these open practices genuinely improve R&D efficiency? The transition towards open science aims to make research more reproducible and inclusive, yet its tangible impacts on research and development productivity require careful measurement [79]. Traditional research assessment heavily relies on citation-based metrics like the Journal Impact Factor (JIF), which critics argue poorly captures true research quality and ignores diverse contributions beyond publications [80] [79]. This whitepaper provides a technical framework for assessing open science's impact on R&D efficiency, offering researchers and drug development professionals validated metrics, methodological protocols, and visualization tools to demonstrate value in the evolving research ecosystem.

Theoretical Foundation: Research Assessment Reform and Open Science

The Critique of Traditional Metrics

Current research assessment faces significant challenges due to overreliance on problematic metrics. The Journal Impact Factor and related citation counts are often misused as surrogates for research quality, creating perverse incentives that can undermine open science practices [79]. This narrow focus fails to recognize vital research outputs like datasets, software code, and protocols [79]. As a result, researchers may prioritize publishing in high-JIF journals over engaging in open science activities that lack tangible career rewards [79]. Global initiatives like the Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) and the Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA) have emerged to address these limitations, advocating for assessment based on qualitative judgment supported by responsible quantitative indicators [79].

Aligning Open Science with Assessment Reform

The relationship between open science and research assessment contains inherent tensions. While open science aims to improve transparency and collaboration, initiatives designed to incentivize it through new metrics risk creating a new form of "metric-driven" behavior that could contradict the qualitative, holistic assessment principles central to reform efforts [80]. Ulrich Herb argues that flooding the market with open science metrics—counting outputs like open access publications, preprints, FAIR datasets, and replication studies—may undermine the very reforms they aim to promote if these metrics remain experimental, fragmented, and lacking standardization [80]. Successful integration requires developing assessment approaches that recognize the diverse contributions researchers make across the entire research lifecycle [81].

A Framework of Metrics for Assessing Open Science Impact

Quantitative Metrics for R&D Efficiency

Table 1: Output and Process Efficiency Metrics

Metric Category	Specific Metrics	Measurement Method	Interpretation
Access & Dissemination	Open Access Publication Rate; Preprint Submission Rate; Data Repository Deposits	Count tracking; Platform analytics	Higher rates indicate broader dissemination
Data Reuse & Utility	Dataset Downloads; Citations of Shared Data; Reuse in Patents	Altmetrics; Citation tracking; Patent analysis	Measures practical value of shared resources
Collaboration & Network	New Collaboration Partners; Inter-institutional Projects; Cross-sector Partnerships	Project documentation; Network analysis	Indicates expanded research capacity
Research Speed	Submission-to-Publication Time; Protocol-to-Data Sharing Interval; Time to First Citation	Time tracking; Bibliometric analysis	Shorter times suggest accelerated processes
Economic Indicators	Cost Savings in Data Collection; R&D Labor Costs; Transaction Costs	Cost-benefit analysis; Economic modeling	Higher savings indicate improved efficiency [82]

Table 2: Qualitative and Impact Metrics

Metric Domain	Assessment Method	Application in R&D
Reproducibility & Rigor	Independent validation studies; Protocol adherence assessment	Measures reliability of research outputs
Knowledge Integration	Case studies of research informing policy/industry; Surveys of knowledge uptake	Demonstrates real-world application
Capacity Building	Skills development tracking; Infrastructure utilization metrics	Shows enhancement of research capabilities
Policy & Societal Impact	Policy document citations; Media mentions; Public engagement metrics	Captures broader research influence

The OPUS Framework for Holistic Assessment

The Open and Universal Science (OPUS) project provides a flexible Researcher Assessment Framework that recognizes contributions across four key domains: research, education, leadership, and valorization [81]. This approach, compiled in an Open Science Career Assessment Matrix (OSCAM), allows institutions to adapt indicators based on disciplinary contexts and career stages [81]. For materials informatics and drug development, this might include valuing contributions to community resources, development of open algorithms, or sharing of validated compound libraries alongside traditional publications.

Experimental Protocols for Metric Implementation

Protocol 1: Measuring Research Acceleration

Objective: Quantify time savings in the research lifecycle attributable to open science practices.

Methodology:

• Select a sample of research projects from comparable domains (e.g., materials characterization, compound screening)
• Document temporal milestones using a standardized tracking template:
  • Research initiation date
  • Protocol registration date (if applicable)
  • Data collection completion
  • Data sharing date (if applicable)
  • Manuscript submission
  • Publication date
  • First external citation
• Compare timelines between projects utilizing open science practices (e.g., preprint posting, data sharing) and those following traditional approaches
• Control for project complexity, resource allocation, and team size using multivariate regression analysis

Data Analysis: Calculate time differences between key milestones and perform statistical significance testing using survival analysis or t-tests depending on data distribution.

Protocol 2: Assessing Data Reuse and Derivative Impact

Objective: Measure the downstream utility and research efficiency gains from shared open data.

Methodology:

• Identify datasets shared through institutional repositories or community platforms
• Implement tracking mechanisms:
  • Assign persistent identifiers (DOIs) to datasets
  • Implement version control and citation recommendations
  • Monitor downstream usage through:
    • Formal citations in literature
    • Informal mentions in protocols/methods
    • Reuse in databases and meta-analyses
    • Commercial applications tracking
• Deploy usage surveys to researchers who accessed datasets
• Conduct case studies of high-impact reuse examples

Data Analysis: Calculate reuse rates, citation counts, and conduct content analysis of reuse purposes. Develop classification schema for types of reuse (e.g., validation, new analysis, method development).

Protocol 3: Economic Efficiency Assessment

Objective: Evaluate cost savings and economic returns from open science activities.

Methodology:

• Document resource allocation for research projects:
  • Data acquisition costs
  • Personnel time for data collection/processing
  • Literature access expenses
  • Collaboration coordination costs
• Compare projects with open science components against traditional models
• Calculate quantifiable savings from:
  • Avoided data collection through reuse
  • Reduced subscription costs
  • Accelerated research timelines
• Assess indirect benefits through interviews and case studies

Data Analysis: Perform cost-benefit analysis and calculate return on investment metrics. Model efficiency gains using productivity functions [82].

Visualization of Assessment Frameworks

Open Science Assessment Ecosystem

Research Assessment Implementation Workflow

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Key Reagents and Tools for Open Science Assessment

Tool Category	Specific Solutions	Function in Assessment
Data Repository Platforms	Zenodo; Figshare; Open Science Framework	Provide persistent storage with citation capabilities for datasets and protocols
Persistent Identifier Systems	DOI; ORCID; ROR	Enable precise tracking of outputs and contributor affiliations
Altmetric Tracking	Altmetric.com; PlumX	Capture non-traditional impacts including policy mentions and media coverage
Analysis & Visualization	R Programming; Python (Pandas); ChartExpo	Support statistical analysis and creation of informative visualizations [83] [84]
Assessment Frameworks	OPUS OSCAM2; DORA Recommendations	Provide structured approaches for holistic evaluation [79] [81]
Collaboration Infrastructure	Open source platforms; Version control systems	Enable transparent collaboration and contribution tracking

Challenges and Implementation Considerations

Methodological Limitations

Assessing open science impact faces several methodological challenges. Many benefits of open science practices have long time horizons for realization, making short-term assessment difficult [85]. Additionally, usage of open science outputs often leaves no obvious trace, requiring reliance on interviews, surveys, and inference-based approaches [82]. There are also significant capacity barriers, including lack of skills in search, interpretation, and text mining of open resources [82].

Contextual Factors

The impact of open science varies significantly across contexts. Evidence suggests benefits differ by sector organization size, with smaller companies potentially benefiting more from open access to research they couldn't otherwise afford [82]. disciplinary variations also exist, with fields like materials informatics potentially showing different patterns of data reuse compared to life sciences. Implementation must account for these contextual factors when selecting and interpreting metrics.

Quantifying the impact of open science on R&D efficiency requires moving beyond traditional bibliometrics to embrace a multidimensional assessment framework. By implementing the metrics, protocols, and visualizations outlined in this whitepaper, researchers and drug development professionals can generate robust evidence of how open practices accelerate discovery, reduce costs, and enhance collaboration in materials informatics and related fields. Future assessment efforts should prioritize developing standardized metrics, addressing capacity barriers, and creating incentives that align with open science values. As global initiatives like OPUS demonstrate, with clear action plans, engaged communities, and sustained support, the evolution toward transparent, responsible research assessment is achievable [81].

The open science movement is fundamentally reshaping research paradigms in materials informatics, a field that applies data-centric approaches and machine learning to accelerate materials discovery and development [1]. This transformative shift is championing greater transparency, accessibility, and collaborative effort in scientific research. Within this context, two dominant models for organizing research and development have emerged: Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) and Fully Open-Source Initiatives. This whitepaper provides an in-depth comparative analysis of these two collaborative frameworks, examining their operational mechanisms, comparative advantages, and implementation challenges. The analysis is situated within the broader thesis of the open science movement, assessing how each model contributes to or potentially constrains the advancement of materials informatics. The objective is to equip researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals with a structured understanding to inform their strategic choices in collaborative materials research, enabling them to select the model most aligned with their project goals, resource constraints, and values regarding knowledge dissemination.

Defining the Collaborative Models

Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) in Materials Informatics

Public-Private Partnerships represent a structured collaborative framework where public sector entities (e.g., government agencies, national laboratories, public universities) and private sector companies (e.g., materials manufacturers, AI startups, pharmaceutical firms) pool resources, expertise, and risks to achieve shared R&D objectives. In the context of materials informatics, a new typology of "open innovation" PPPs has emerged, characterized by the simultaneous realization of innovative technology development by the public sector and business creation by the private sector through bi-directional collaboration [86]. This model is a strategic response to traditional challenges such as the reduction of public R&D opportunities and private-sector risk aversion. Successful PPPs are underpinned by several critical process factors: the accurate estimation of mutual capabilities and benefits, the clear establishment of collaboration goals, and strong commitment to mutual activities [86]. These partnerships often operate within defined intellectual property frameworks that seek to balance the public good mission of government entities with the commercial interests of private firms.

Fully Open-Source Initiatives in Materials Informatics

Fully Open-Source Initiatives represent a decentralized, community-driven model where the core components of the research—including data, software algorithms, computational tools, and sometimes even experimental results—are made publicly accessible under licenses that permit free use, modification, and redistribution. This model embodies the core principles of the open science movement by minimizing barriers to participation and fostering a global collaborative network. In materials informatics, this manifests through open-source software for material modeling [5], publicly available data repositories adhering to FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) principles [5], and community-developed resources. The philosophy centers on the belief that rapid, transparent innovation occurs more effectively through open collaboration than through proprietary, siloed efforts. The model leverages improvements in data infrastructures, such as open-access data repositories and cloud-based research platforms [1], and thrives on the collective intelligence of a diverse, global researcher community.

Comparative Analysis: Key Dimensions

A comprehensive comparison of PPPs and Fully Open-Source Initiatives reveals distinct characteristics across several critical dimensions relevant to materials informatics research. The following table synthesizes these differences to facilitate a structured comparison.

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of PPP and Fully Open-Source Models

Dimension	Public-Private Partnership (PPP)	Fully Open-Source Initiative
Governance & Structure	Formal, structured governance; defined roles and responsibilities; contractual agreements [86]	Decentralized, community-led; meritocratic or benevolent dictator governance models
Funding Mechanism	Combined public funding and private investment; project-specific allocations [86]	Mixed: grants, donations, institutional support, volunteer contributions
Intellectual Property (IP)	Clearly defined IP rights; shared ownership agreements; background and foreground IP distinctions	Copyleft or permissive licenses (e.g., GPL, Apache, MIT); minimal retention of proprietary rights
Data Sharing Norms	Selective sharing within partnership; often embargoed for commercial exploitation [86]	Default to open data; adherence to FAIR principles; public repositories [5]
Development Speed	Potentially rapid due to concentrated resources; can be slowed by administrative overhead	Variable; can be rapid through parallel development; may lack centralized direction
Sustainability Model	Project-based lifespan; dependent on continued alignment of public and private interests	Relies on ongoing community engagement; can be fragile without institutional backing
Primary Strengths	Resource concentration; clear commercialization path; risk sharing [86]	Transparency; global talent access; avoidance of "re-inventing the wheel" [5]
Primary Challenges	IP negotiations; potential misalignment of goals; bureaucratic complexity [86]	Securing sustainable funding; maintaining quality control; free-rider problem

Quantitative Data and Market Outlook

The adoption and impact of these collaborative models can be partially quantified through market forecasts and analysis of strategic approaches. The external market for materials informatics services, which engages both PPP and open-source players, is projected to grow significantly. A recent market analysis forecasts the revenue of firms offering external materials informatics services to reach US$725 million by 2034, representing a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 9.0% from 2025 [1]. This growth is indicative of the increasing integration of data-centric approaches in materials R&D.

The strategic approaches to adopting materials informatics further illuminate the landscape. Industry players typically choose one of three primary pathways, each with different implications for collaboration:

Table 2: Strategic Approaches for Materials Informatics Adoption

Strategic Approach	Prevalence & Characteristics	Relation to Collaborative Models
Fully In-House	Developing internal MI capabilities; requires significant investment but retains full IP control.	Often a component within a PPP, where a private partner brings internal expertise.
Work with an External Company	Partnering with specialized MI service providers; faster adoption with less capital outlay.	Can be a component of a PPP or a commercial alternative to it.
Join Forces as Part of a Consortium	Multiple entities (e.g., companies, universities) pooling resources in a pre-competitive space.	Represents a multi-party PPP or a structured, member-driven open-source-like community.

Geographically, notable trends exist. For instance, many end-users embracing materials informatics are Japanese companies, while many emerging external service providers are from the USA, and significant consortia and academic labs are split across Japan and the USA [1]. This geographic distribution influences the formation and nature of both PPPs and open-source communities.

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Protocol for Establishing a Public-Private Partnership

Implementing a successful PPP requires a structured methodology. Based on an analysis of approximately 30 space sector PPP projects, a viable protocol can be adapted for materials informatics [86].

Phase 1: Partnership Scoping and Planning

• Needs Assessment: Public and private partners jointly identify a specific materials challenge (e.g., developing a new battery electrolyte, a biodegradable polymer, or a high-temperature superconductor) that aligns with public R&D priorities and private market opportunities.
• Capability and Benefit Estimation: Conduct a rigorous assessment of the unique capabilities, data, and infrastructure each party brings (e.g., public sector's high-performance computing vs. private sector's high-throughput experimentation labs). Define the expected mutual benefits, such as scientific publications for academics and a path to market for industry.
• Goal Setting: Establish clear, measurable, and agreed-upon collaboration goals. These should cover technical milestones (e.g., "discover a material with property X within Y months"), data management plans, and commercialization objectives.

Phase 2: Agreement Structuring

• Framework Development: Define the governance structure, including a joint steering committee. The FLEX (Flexible Lifecycle Execution) framework, developed for agile AI partnerships, provides a relevant model, guiding organizations through defining objectives, identifying risks, and designing collaborative projects [87].
• IP and Data Agreement: Negotiate and codify terms for background IP (pre-existing knowledge each party brings) and foreground IP (results generated during the project). Define data sharing protocols, ownership, and any embargo periods.

Phase 3: Execution and Management

• Project Launch: Initiate the collaborative R&D activities. This often involves creating cross-functional teams with members from both sectors.
• Iterative Collaboration and Monitoring: Maintain active commitment through regular reviews. Utilize the SMART (Systematic Mapping And Reuse Toolkit) concept to map and reuse testing outcomes and data across similar use cases within the project, reducing redundancy and accelerating development [87].
• Knowledge Transfer and Commercialization: Execute the plan for disseminating public knowledge (e.g., publications) and transitioning successful results into private-sector development and manufacturing.

Protocol for Contributing to a Fully Open-Source Initiative

Contributing to an open-source project in materials informatics involves a community-oriented workflow that emphasizes transparency and collective improvement.

Phase 1: Onboarding and Environment Setup

• Project Identification: Select a project aligned with your research interests from major repositories (e.g., GitHub, GitLab). Examples include open-source packages for density functional theory (DFT) calculations, molecular dynamics, or materials data curation.
• Community Engagement: Familiarize yourself with the project's communication channels (e.g., Slack, Discord, mailing lists). Review all contributing guidelines, code of conduct, and documentation.
• Development Environment Setup: Fork the project repository and set up a local development environment, ensuring all dependencies and testing frameworks are correctly installed.

Phase 2: Contribution and Iteration

• Issue Discovery/Selection: Identify a bug, a desired feature, or an improvement. This could be adding a new machine learning model to a materials informatics library or improving the parsing of a specific data format.
• Branching and Development: Create a new branch in your fork. Implement your changes, ensuring adherence to the project's coding standards. A key step is writing or updating tests to validate your contribution.
• Local Testing: Thoroughly test your changes locally to ensure they function as expected and do not break existing functionality.

Phase 3: Peer Review and Integration

• Pull Request (PR) Submission: Push your branch and open a pull request against the main project repository. The PR description should clearly articulate the problem and solution.
• Community Review: Address feedback and questions from project maintainers and other community members. This iterative review process is critical for maintaining quality.
• CI/CD and Merge: The project's Continuous Integration/Continuous Deployment (CI/CD) pipeline will automatically run tests. Once the PR is approved and all tests pass, a maintainer will merge your contribution into the main codebase.

The following workflow diagram visualizes the core contribution protocol for a Fully Open-Source Initiative.

Open Source Contribution Workflow

The practice of materials informatics, regardless of the collaborative model, relies on a core set of "research reagents" – the data, software, and computational tools that form the foundation of discovery. The following table details these essential components.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents in Materials Informatics

Tool/Resource Category	Specific Examples & Functions	Relevance to Collaborative Models
Data Repositories	Materials Project, NOMAD, AFLOW: Centralized databases of calculated and experimental materials properties; enable data-driven discovery and training of ML models [5].	Open-Source: Fundamental infrastructure. PPP: Often used as a starting point for proprietary data generation.
Software & Algorithms	Python Data Stack (e.g., scikit-learn, pymatgen): Libraries for data analysis, featurization, and machine learning. Traditional Models (DFT, MD): For generating training data and physical insights [5].	Open-Source: The default standard. PPP: May use a mix of open-source and proprietary, commercial software.
AI/ML Models	Supervised Learning (e.g., Random Forests, Neural Networks): For predicting material properties from descriptors. Unsupervised Learning: For finding patterns and clustering in materials data [1].	Core to both models. PPPs may develop more specialized, proprietary models.
Descriptors & Featurization	Crystal Fingerprints (e.g., Sine Matrix, SOAP): Mathematical representations of crystal or molecular structure that can be understood by ML algorithms [88].	A technical foundation for both models; often open-source, but PPPs may develop novel, application-specific descriptors.
High-Throughput (HT) Platforms	HT Experimentation/Computation: Automated systems for rapidly synthesizing, processing, or simulating many material candidates in parallel [1].	PPP: More common due to high capital cost. Open-Source: Data from HT systems is highly valued when publicly released.
Laboratory Informatics	ELN/LIMS (Electronic Lab Notebook/Lab Info Management System): Software for managing experimental data and metadata, crucial for building quality datasets [1].	Used in both models; choice of specific system can be influenced by partnership agreements or community standards.

The choice between Public-Private Partnerships and Fully Open-Source Initiatives is not a binary one but a strategic decision that must be aligned with the specific objectives, constraints, and values of a materials informatics project. PPPs offer a powerful framework for de-risking large-scale, application-driven innovation with a clear path to commercialization, leveraging concentrated resources and structured management [86]. In contrast, Fully Open-Source Initiatives excel in fostering transparency, accelerating foundational knowledge building, and harnessing the collective intelligence of a global community, fully embodying the ethos of the open science movement [5]. The evolving landscape suggests a future of increased hybridity, where the discipline and resources of PPPs interact synergistically with the dynamism and openness of community-driven projects. For the field to mature, advancing standardized data formats, developing interoperable AI systems, and creating new funding and recognition mechanisms that reward open collaboration will be essential. Researchers and institutions are encouraged to thoughtfully engage with both models, contributing to an ecosystem where focused, mission-driven partnerships and open, community-based science can coexist and mutually reinforce the overarching goal of accelerating materials discovery for the benefit of society.

The field of materials science is undergoing a profound transformation, driven by the convergence of artificial intelligence, high-throughput experimentation, and the foundational principles of the open science movement. Materials informatics—the application of data-centric approaches and machine learning to materials research and development—is emerging as the fourth scientific paradigm, following the historical eras of experimental, theoretical, and computationally propelled discoveries [39]. This shift is accelerating the traditional materials development pipeline, which has historically been characterized by slow, costly, and inefficient trial-and-error processes that often require decades to bring new materials to market [39]. By systematically extracting knowledge from materials datasets that are too large or complex for traditional human reasoning, materials informatics enables researchers to not only predict material properties but also to perform inverse design—starting from a set of desired properties and working backward to engineer the ideal material [89].

The open science movement has been instrumental in creating the ecosystem necessary for data-driven materials science to flourish. With its emphasis on cooperative work and new ways of diffusing knowledge through digital technologies, open science has fostered the development of open-access data repositories, standardized data formats, and collaborative research platforms that form the backbone of modern materials informatics [39]. This article assesses how emerging players—from well-funded startups to big tech corporations—are leveraging these technological and cultural shifts to redefine the landscape of materials innovation, with profound implications for researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals seeking to harness these capabilities for accelerated discovery.

The Emerging Players Landscape

The materials informatics ecosystem has evolved into a diverse and dynamic landscape comprising specialized startups, technology giants, and established materials companies developing in-house capabilities. Understanding the distinct approaches, technologies, and strategic positions of these players is essential for comprehending the current and future direction of the field.

Innovative Startups and Their Disruptive Technologies

Table 1: Key Startups in Materials Informatics and Their Specializations

Company	Funding Status	Core Technology Focus	Primary Applications
Lila Sciences	$550M total funding ($350M Series A); $1.3B valuation [90]	"Scientific superintelligence platform" combining specialized AI models with fully automated laboratories [89] [90]	Life sciences, chemistry, materials science with focus on energy, semiconductors, and drug development [90]
Dunia Innovations	$11.5M venture funding (October 2024) [89]	Physics-informed machine learning integrated with lab automation [89]	Heterogeneous catalysis, green hydrogen production [89]
Citrine Informatics	Not specified in search results	AI platform for materials development	Not specified in search results
Kebotix	Not specified in search results	AI and robotics for materials discovery	Not specified in search results

Startups have emerged as particularly disruptive forces, often pursuing ambitious technological visions with substantial venture backing. Lila Sciences, a venture originating from Cambridge, MA-based biotech venture firm Flagship Pioneering, exemplifies this trend with its recent announcement of $200 million in seed capital and a total funding of $550 million, achieving a valuation exceeding $1.3 billion with backing from Nvidia's venture arm [89] [90]. The company aims to build a "scientific superintelligence platform and fully autonomous labs for life, chemical and materials sciences" [89]. Their strategy centers on creating "AI Science Factories"—facilities equipped with robotic instruments controlled by AI to run experiments continuously [90]. This approach emphasizes generating proprietary scientific data through novel experiments rather than solely relying on existing datasets, reflecting a strategic bet that future leadership in AI for science will depend on owning the largest automated lab infrastructure rather than just the biggest data center [90].

Berlin-based Dunia Innovations represents another promising startup, focusing specifically on material discovery through physics-informed machine learning and lab automation [89]. The company emerged from stealth in October 2024 with $11.5 million in venture funding [89]. Both Dunia and Lila have demonstrated significant focus on heterogeneous catalysis for applications including green hydrogen production, highlighting how materials informatics startups are targeting critical sustainability challenges [89].

Big Tech's Strategic Entry into Materials Informatics

Table 2: Big Tech Companies and Their Materials Informatics Initiatives

Company	Platform/Initiative	Technical Approach	Key Partners/Collaborators
Microsoft	Azure Quantum Elements [89]	AI screening combined with accelerated density functional theory (DFT) simulations	Johnson Matthew, AkzoNobel, Unilever [89]
Meta	Fundamental AI Research Team [89]	Creation of large-scale open datasets	Research community (released 110M+ data point dataset of inorganic materials) [89]
Nvidia	Venture funding and AI hardware/software	AI infrastructure and acceleration	Lila Sciences (investor) [90]

Major technology corporations have significantly expanded their presence in the materials informatics space since 2023, leveraging their substantial computational resources, AI expertise, and cloud infrastructure [89]. Microsoft's Azure Quantum Elements platform uses AI screening combined with accelerated density functional theory (DFT) simulations for material development, with published use cases across multiple materials fields in partnership with companies including Johnson Matthew, AkzoNobel, and Unilever [89].

Meta has taken a different approach through its Fundamental AI Research team, which made a massive dataset of 110 million data points on inorganic materials openly available in 2024 [89]. This contribution to the open science ecosystem is intended to foster material discovery projects for applications such as sustainable fuels and augmented reality devices, demonstrating how big tech companies can accelerate progress through strategic resource sharing [89]. These companies represent formidable competitors to dedicated materials informatics providers, with some industry analysts predicting they will become the most significant challengers to established players in the next five years [89].

Core Technologies and Methodologies

The transformative potential of emerging players in materials informatics derives from their development and integration of sophisticated technological frameworks that span computational, experimental, and data management domains.

AI and Machine Learning Approaches

• Scientific Machine Learning: This powerful platform technology combines physical models with data-driven approaches, ensuring that predictions adhere to known scientific principles [91]. This hybrid methodology is particularly valuable for addressing the "sparse, high-dimensional, biased, and noisy" datasets characteristic of materials science research [89]. Physics-informed machine learning, as employed by Dunia Innovations, represents a specific implementation of this approach where domain knowledge is embedded directly into the learning process [89].

• Inverse Design and Bayesian Optimization: Unlike traditional "forward" innovation (predicting properties for a given material), inverse design starts from desired properties and works backward to identify optimal material structures [89]. This capability is enabled by sophisticated optimization techniques, including Bayesian optimization, which efficiently explores high-dimensional design spaces while balancing exploitation of known promising regions with exploration of new possibilities [1].

• Active Learning for Experimental Design: Active learning frameworks enable AI systems to strategically select which experiments to perform next in order to maximize knowledge gain or property improvement [1]. This approach is particularly powerful when integrated with automated laboratory systems, as it creates a closed-loop discovery process that dramatically reduces the number of experimental iterations required.

• Foundation Models and Large Language Models: The AI boom has brought increased capabilities in natural language processing that are being adapted for scientific applications. Large language models can simplify materials informatics by helping researchers navigate complex software interfaces, extract information from scientific literature, and potentially generate hypotheses [1]. The future may see the development of foundation models specifically trained on materials science knowledge.

Data Infrastructure and Management

Robust data infrastructure forms the foundation of effective materials informatics, addressing the unique challenges of materials data through standardized approaches to acquisition, management, and sharing.

• FAIR Data Principles: The establishment of data infrastructures following Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable (FAIR) principles is critical for advancing data-driven materials science [5]. These standards ensure that data generated across different research groups and organizations can be effectively integrated and leveraged for machine learning applications.

• Materials Ontologies and Metadata Standards: Specialized frameworks for consistent labeling, classification, and interpretation of materials data enable cross-system compatibility and knowledge representation [13]. These semantic structures are essential for creating a unified ecosystem where data from diverse sources can be meaningfully combined and analyzed.

• Open Data Repositories: Initiatives like Meta's 110-million point dataset of inorganic materials exemplify the growing importance of large-scale, openly accessible data resources in accelerating discovery [89]. Such repositories provide the training data necessary for developing robust machine learning models, particularly for research groups that may lack the resources to generate comprehensive datasets independently.

Autonomous Laboratories and High-Throughput Experimentation

The integration of AI with robotic laboratory instrumentation represents one of the most transformative technological developments in materials informatics. Companies like Lila Sciences are pioneering the development of "self-driving labs" or "AI Science Factories" that can operate continuously with minimal human intervention [90]. These facilities combine robotic instruments for material synthesis, processing, and characterization with AI systems that plan experiments, analyze results, and iteratively refine hypotheses. This integration creates a closed-loop discovery system that dramatically accelerates the empirical phase of materials development while generating high-quality, standardized data for further model training [89] [90].

The Open Science Context

The emergence of innovative players in materials informatics must be understood within the broader context of the open science movement, which has fundamentally reshaped how scientific knowledge is created, shared, and utilized.

Historical Foundations and Philosophy

The open science movement traces its philosophical roots to the early ideals of scientific openness and accessibility, with practical implementation accelerating dramatically with the advent of digital technologies and the internet [39]. As early as 1710, the UK Copyright Act endowed ownership of copyright to authors rather than publishers, establishing an important precedent for making research publicly accessible [39]. The modern open science framework, as articulated by the European Commission, emphasizes "cooperative work and new ways of diffusing knowledge by using digital technologies and new collaborative tools" [39]. This philosophy aligns perfectly with the needs of data-driven materials science, which thrives on access to diverse, high-quality datasets and collaborative development of analytical tools.

The materials informatics ecosystem exhibits a complex interplay between proprietary commercial platforms and open science initiatives. While companies like Lila Sciences and Microsoft are developing sophisticated closed platforms, they operate alongside and sometimes contribute to open resources like Meta's large-scale materials dataset [89]. This hybrid ecosystem creates a dynamic where competitive advantage is derived not merely from hoarding data but from capabilities in generating novel data, developing specialized AI models, and creating efficient discovery workflows.

Standardization and Best Practices

The maturation of materials informatics as a discipline is increasingly dependent on the development and adoption of standardized practices that ensure reliability and reproducibility. As noted in a 2020 preview in Matter journal, "Developing and employing best practice is an important stage in a maturing scientific discipline and is well overdue for the field of materials informatics, where a systematic approach to data science is needed to ensure the reliability and reproducibility of results" [92]. These standardization efforts span multiple domains:

• Data Standards: Establishment of common formats, metadata requirements, and vocabulary for representing materials data enables interoperability between different systems and research groups [39]. Initiatives like the Materials Genome Initiative in the United States have been instrumental in driving these standardization efforts [13].

• Model Validation: Consistent approaches for training, testing, and validating machine learning models are essential for assessing their real-world performance and preventing overfitting, particularly when working with the limited datasets common in experimental materials science [5].

• Experimental Protocols: Standardized procedures for materials synthesis, processing, and characterization ensure that data generated in different laboratories can be meaningfully compared and combined [92]. This is particularly important for creating the high-quality, consistent datasets needed to train reliable AI models.

Experimental Methodologies and Workflows

The transformative impact of emerging players in materials informatics is most evident in their implementation of novel experimental methodologies that integrate computational and empirical approaches.

Integrated Computational-Experimental Workflows

Detailed Methodological Approaches

• Physics-Informed Machine Learning for Catalysis Development: Dunia Innovations' focus on heterogeneous catalysis for green hydrogen production exemplifies the application of specialized machine learning approaches to sustainability challenges [89]. Their methodology likely integrates fundamental physical principles of catalytic mechanisms with data-driven models trained on experimental reaction data. This hybrid approach ensures that predictions respect known physical constraints while leveraging patterns in empirical data that might not be fully captured by first-principles models alone. The implementation of lab automation enables rapid experimental validation of computational predictions, creating a virtuous cycle of model improvement and discovery acceleration.

• Autonomous Discovery in "AI Science Factories": Lila Sciences' approach centers on creating fully integrated discovery environments where AI systems not only analyze data but actively plan and execute experimental campaigns [90]. Their "scientific superintelligence platform" likely employs hierarchical AI architectures with specialized models for different aspects of the research process: experimental design, robotic control, data analysis, and hypothesis generation. The scale of their operations—evidenced by their 235,500-square-foot facility in Cambridge, Massachusetts—enables massively parallel experimentation that generates the comprehensive datasets needed to train robust AI models across multiple domains including life sciences, chemistry, and materials science [90].

• High-Throughput Virtual Screening (HTVS): This methodology, employed by platforms like Microsoft's Azure Quantum Elements, uses computational simulations to rapidly evaluate thousands or millions of potential material candidates before committing resources to experimental synthesis [89] [1]. By combining AI-powered pre-screening with accelerated density functional theory (DFT) and other computational methods, these platforms can identify the most promising candidates for further experimental investigation, dramatically increasing the efficiency of the discovery process [89].

Researchers navigating the evolving landscape of materials informatics have access to an expanding array of tools, platforms, and resources developed by both emerging players and established organizations.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagent Solutions in Materials Informatics

Resource Category	Specific Examples	Function and Application
Commercial AI Platforms	Microsoft Azure Quantum Elements, Citrine Informatics, Kebotix [89] [13]	End-to-end platforms providing AI tools for materials screening, optimization, and discovery
Open Data Repositories	Meta's inorganic materials dataset (110M+ data points) [89]	Large-scale, openly accessible datasets for training machine learning models
Simulation & Modeling Tools	Density functional theory (DFT), molecular dynamics [13]	Computational methods for simulating material behavior and generating synthetic data
Automated Laboratory Systems	Lila Sciences' "AI Science Factories", Dunia's automated labs [89] [90]	Robotic systems for high-throughput synthesis and characterization
Specialized Algorithms	Bayesian optimization, active learning, physics-informed neural networks [1] [91]	ML approaches specifically adapted for materials science challenges
Data Standards & Ontologies	FAIR data principles, materials ontologies [5] [39]	Frameworks ensuring consistent data interpretation and interoperability

Market Impact and Future Trajectory

The growing influence of emerging players in materials informatics is reflected in market projections and investment trends that signal significant expansion and technological evolution.

Table 4: Materials Informatics Market Outlook and Projections

Market Aspect	Current Status (2024-2025)	Projected Growth/Future Outlook
Global Market Size	$208.41 million (2025) [13]	$1,139.45 million by 2034 (20.80% CAGR) [13]
Regional Leadership	North America dominated with 39.20% share (2024) [13]	Asia-Pacific projected as fastest-growing region [13]
Leading Application Sectors	Chemical industries (29.81% share), electronics & semiconductors (fastest growing) [13]	Expansion across energy, pharmaceuticals, and sustainability-focused applications
Funding Environment	Major funding rounds: Lila Sciences ($550M total), Dunia Innovations ($11.5M) [89] [90]	Continued strong investor interest in AI-driven scientific discovery

The market expansion is driven by multiple factors, including the escalating demand for advanced, sustainable, and cost-effective materials across sectors such as electronics, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, and aerospace [13]. The increasing integration of AI and machine learning in materials research enables significant reductions in development time and cost while potentially discovering novel materials and relationships that might not be identified through traditional approaches [89] [1].

The competitive landscape is evolving rapidly, with IDTechEx forecasting a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 9.0% through 2035 for materials informatics service providers [89] [1]. However, this projection may underestimate the impact of emerging players and technological disruptions. The field is characterized by diverse business models and strategic approaches, with some companies offering external services while others develop in-house capabilities or participate in research consortia [1].

The emergence of well-funded startups and big tech companies in materials informatics represents a fundamental shift in how materials discovery and development are approached. Companies like Lila Sciences and Dunia Innovations, along with initiatives from Microsoft, Meta, and Nvidia, are creating a new ecosystem that integrates advanced AI, automated experimentation, and data-driven methodologies to accelerate innovation across materials science, chemistry, and life sciences [89] [90]. These developments are unfolding within the broader context of the open science movement, creating a complex interplay between proprietary platforms and shared resources that will shape the future of materials research [39].

For researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals, these changes present both opportunities and challenges. The availability of sophisticated AI tools and platforms can dramatically accelerate discovery timelines and enable more ambitious research objectives. However, effectively leveraging these capabilities requires developing new skills in data science, computational methods, and experimental design that integrates digital tools. The organizations that will thrive in this evolving landscape are those that can successfully combine domain expertise in materials science with the strategic adoption of informatics approaches, while actively participating in the collaborative ecosystems that drive progress in the field.

As materials informatics continues to mature, the focus will increasingly shift toward creating more integrated, autonomous, and predictive discovery systems. The convergence of AI, robotics, and data science promises to not only accelerate existing research paradigms but to enable entirely new approaches to materials innovation that could address pressing global challenges in sustainability, healthcare, and advanced technology.

The evolving landscape of scientific research, particularly within materials science and chemistry, is being fundamentally reshaped by the emergence of Self-Driving Labs (SDLs). These systems represent a paradigm shift from traditional, human-centric experimentation to a fully integrated, automated approach. SDLs are robotic systems that automate the entire process of experimental design, execution, and analysis in a closed-loop fashion, using artificial intelligence (AI) to make real-time decisions about subsequent experiments [93] [94]. This transformation is critical for addressing global challenges in energy, medicine, and sustainability, where the complexity and intersectionality of problems demand a move beyond individualized research to massively collaborative efforts [95]. By integrating robotics, artificial intelligence, autonomous experimentation, and digital provenance, SDLs create a continuous, data-rich, and adaptive research process that can compress discovery timelines that traditionally took decades into mere weeks or months [96] [93].

Framed within the broader context of the open science movement, SDLs serve as a powerful technological enabler for democratizing research. They reduce physical and technical barriers, facilitate the sharing of high-quality, reproducible data, and foster a more inclusive research community [95]. The core differentiator between an SDL and simple automation lies in its capacity for intelligent experimental design. Unlike established high-throughput or cloud laboratories that execute fixed protocols, SDLs employ algorithms to judiciously select and adapt experiments, efficiently navigating vast, multivariate design spaces that are intractable for human researchers [95]. This ability to autonomously generate hypotheses, synthesize candidates, run experiments, and analyze results—learning from each iteration—positions SDLs as the key to closing the gap between AI-powered material design and real-world experimental validation [93].

The Architectural Framework of an SDL

The operational power of a Self-Driving Lab stems from its multi-layered architecture, where each layer performs a distinct, critical function. Understanding this architecture is essential for appreciating how SDLs achieve autonomous discovery. The technical framework can be broken down into five interlocking layers [96]:

• Actuation Layer: This comprises the robotic systems and hardware that perform physical tasks in the laboratory. This includes automated systems for dispensing, heating, mixing, and other synthetic procedures, as well as instruments for characterizing the resulting materials.
• Sensing Layer: This layer consists of sensors and analytical instruments (e.g., spectrometers, chromatographs) that capture real-time data on process parameters and the properties of synthesized products. This data is the essential feedback for the system.
• Control Layer: This is the software backbone that orchestrates the experimental sequences, ensuring the precise synchronization of hardware, maintaining safety protocols, and executing commands with high precision.
• Autonomy Layer: This is the "brain" of the SDL, featuring AI agents that plan experiments, interpret results from the sensing layer, and update the overall experimental strategy. It uses algorithms like Bayesian optimization and reinforcement learning to navigate complex design spaces efficiently.
• Data Layer: This foundational layer provides the infrastructure for storing, managing, and sharing all experimental data, metadata, uncertainty estimates, and the complete digital provenance of every experiment, ensuring reproducibility and alignment with FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) principles.

The following diagram illustrates the logical workflow and the continuous feedback loop that connects these layers, demonstrating how an SDL operates as an integrated system.

Quantitative Performance and Application Metrics

SDL platforms have demonstrated transformative results across a range of chemical and materials science domains. The table below summarizes key performance data and achievements from documented implementations, providing a quantitative basis for evaluating their impact.

Application Domain	Reported Performance / Achievement	Key SDL Platform (Example)	Significance
Molecular Discovery	Autonomously discovered & synthesized 294 previously unknown dye-like molecules across 3 design-make-test-analyze (DMTA) cycles [96].	Autonomous Multi-property-driven Molecular Discovery (AMMD)	Demonstrates ability to explore vast chemical spaces and converge on high-performance candidates.
Nanoparticle Synthesis	Mapped compositional and process landscapes an order of magnitude faster than manual methods [96].	Multiple Fluidic SDLs	Accelerates optimization of synthetic routes for nanomaterials.
Polymer Discovery	Uncovered new structure-property relationships previously inaccessible to human researchers [96].	Not Specified	Reveals latent design spaces, enabling discovery of novel materials.
Chemical Synthesis & Catalysis	Achieved rapid discovery cycles and record efficiencies in photocatalysis and pharmaceutical manufacturing [94].	RoboChem, AlphaFlow, AFION	Enhances precision and scalability beyond traditional batch methods.
Market Impact	The global market for external provision of materials informatics is forecast to reach US$725 million by 2034, with a 9.0% CAGR [1].	Industry-wide	Signals strong economic growth and adoption of data-centric R&D approaches.

Experimental Protocols in SDLs: A Focus on Flow Chemistry

A key driver of SDL performance is the adoption of flow chemistry as a foundational hardware architecture, which moves beyond simply automating traditional batch processes [94]. Flow chemistry, wherein reagents are pumped through microscale reactors, provides a fundamentally more efficient and data-rich platform for autonomous experimentation.

Core Methodology: Fluidic Robots

The experimental protocol centers on fluidic robots. These are automated systems designed to precisely transport and manipulate fluids between modular process units—such as mixing, reaction, and in-line characterization modules [94]. The protocol can be broken down into the following steps:

• System Configuration: The fluidic robot is configured for either continuous or oscillatory flow, depending on the reaction requirements. This modularity allows the same hardware to accommodate diverse chemistries.
• Reagent Introduction: Liquid reagents are loaded into syringes or reservoirs and are precisely pumped at controlled flow rates into a central mixing unit.
• Continuous Reaction: The mixed reagent stream flows through a microscale reactor (e.g., a tubular reactor or a chip-based device). The reactor can be subjected to controlled heating, cooling, or irradiation (e.g., with light) to drive the reaction.
• In-line Analysis: Immediately following the reactor, the product stream is directed through one or more in-line analytical instruments, such as UV-Vis spectroscopy, NMR, or mass spectrometry. This provides real-time, high-density data on reaction output and conversion.
• Data Feed to AI: The analytical data is streamed directly to the SDL's autonomy layer.
• Closed-Loop Optimization: The AI agent processes the data and uses an optimization algorithm (e.g., Bayesian optimization) to decide on a new set of reaction parameters (e.g., flow rate, temperature, concentration) to maximize the objective in the subsequent experiment. This loop continues autonomously.

Key Research Reagent Solutions

The following table details essential components and their functions within a fluidic SDL system.

Item / Component	Function in the SDL Protocol
Microscale Flow Reactor	Provides a controlled environment for chemical reactions with enhanced heat and mass transfer, enabling rapid parameter modulation and improved reproducibility [94].
Precision Syringe Pumps	Precisely manipulate and transport fluidic reagents at controlled rates between process units, forming the core of the fluidic robot's actuation [94].
In-line Spectrophotometer	A key sensing tool integrated directly into the flow stream for real-time, continuous monitoring of reaction progress and product formation [94].
AI Planning Agent	The "brain" of the SDL; analyzes real-time analytics data and makes informed decisions about subsequent experiments to efficiently navigate the chemical design space [95] [94].
Modular Fluidic Manifold	A reconfigurable network of tubing, valves, and connectors that allows the fluidic robot to be dynamically adapted for different chemical workflows and reaction types [94].

The integration of these components into a cohesive system is depicted in the following workflow, which specifics the closed-loop, continuous process that defines a fluidic SDL.

SDL Deployment Models and the Path to Open Science

The scalability and democratization of SDLs are being pursued through different deployment models, each with distinct advantages for the open science ecosystem. The choice between these models balances accessibility, specialization, and resource allocation.

• Centralized SDL Foundries: This model concentrates advanced, high-end capabilities in national labs or consortia (e.g., BioPacific MIP) [95] [96]. These facilities offer economies of scale, can host hazardous materials infrastructure, and serve as national testbeds for standardization and training. They facilitate access to cutting-edge experimentation through remote, virtual submission of digital workflows, lowering barriers for researchers without local resources [96].

• Distributed Modular Networks: This approach emphasizes widespread access by deploying lower-cost, modular SDL platforms in individual laboratories [95] [96]. While more modest in scope, these distributed systems offer greater flexibility, local ownership, and rapid iteration. When orchestrated via cloud platforms and shared metadata standards, they can function as a "virtual foundry," pooling experimental results to accelerate collective progress in a truly open-science fashion [96].

A hybrid approach is often considered the most preferable, especially in the near term [95] [96]. In this model, preliminary research and workflow development are conducted locally using distributed SDLs. Once a protocol is stabilized, it can be escalated to a centralized facility for high-throughput execution or more complex analyses. This layered approach maximizes both efficiency and accessibility, mirroring the successful paradigm of cloud computing.

Self-Driving Labs represent a foundational shift in the paradigm of scientific research, merging robotics, AI, and data science to create a new infrastructure for discovery. By transforming experimentation into a continuous, data-rich, and adaptive process, they are poised to dramatically accelerate the solution of critical challenges in energy, healthcare, and sustainability. Their inherent capacity for generating high-quality, reproducible data with full digital provenance makes them a powerful engine for the open science movement, promising to democratize access and foster more inclusive, collaborative research communities. While challenges in standardization, interoperability, and workforce training remain, the strategic development of both centralized and distributed SDL networks, supported by policy and sustained investment, will be key to unlocking their full potential. The rise of SDLs marks the beginning of a new era in which human intuition and machine intelligence collaborate to push the boundaries of scientific exploration.

Market Forecast and Adoption Trends in Materials Informatics for the Next Decade

The field of materials science is undergoing a profound transformation, shifting from traditional trial-and-error approaches to data-centric methodologies that leverage artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning (ML), and advanced computational tools. This emerging discipline, known as materials informatics (MI), represents the convergence of materials science, data science, and information technology to accelerate the discovery, design, and optimization of new materials [39]. The core value proposition driving MI adoption is the dramatic reduction in materials development timelines—from the traditional 10-20 years required from concept to commercialization to potentially 2-5 years using MI-enabled methods [97]. This acceleration delivers significant competitive advantages across industries where material innovation directly impacts product performance and market differentiation.

Framed within the broader context of the open science movement, materials informatics embodies principles of transparency, accessibility, and collaborative innovation. The open science movement, which advocates for making scientific research and its dissemination freely available to all levels of society, has fundamentally shaped the philosophy and design of several materials science data infrastructures [39] [98]. As data-driven science emerges as the fourth scientific paradigm following experimentally, theoretically, and computationally propelled discoveries, materials informatics stands at the forefront of this transformation, promising to accelerate the entire materials value chain from discovery to deployment [39].

Market Outlook and Quantitative Forecasts

Global Market Size and Growth Trajectory

The materials informatics market is experiencing robust growth globally, fueled by increasing adoption of AI and ML technologies across research and development (R&D) sectors. Multiple market research firms project significant expansion through 2034, though estimates vary based on methodology and market definitions.

Table 1: Global Materials Informatics Market Size Projections

Source	Base Year/Value	Forecast Period	Projected Market Value	CAGR
Towards Chemical & Materials [74]	USD 304.67M (2025)	2025-2034	USD 1,903.75M	22.58%
Precedence Research [14]	USD 208.41M (2025)	2025-2034	USD 1,139.45M	20.80%
MarketsandMarkets [99]	USD 170.4M (2025)	2025-2030	USD 410.4M	19.2%
IDTechEx [1]	Not specified	2025-2035	USD 725M (2034)	9.0%

This growth is primarily driven by the increasing reliance on AI technology to speed up material discovery and deployment, rising government initiatives to provide low-cost clean energy materials, and the emerging applications of large language models (LLMs) in material development [99]. The market outlook is further strengthened by rising demand for eco-friendly materials aligned with circular economy principles and increasing government funding for advanced material science [14].

Regional Adoption Patterns

North America currently dominates the global materials informatics landscape, but the Asia-Pacific region is projected to be the fastest-growing market over the coming decade.

Table 2: Regional Market Analysis (2024 Base Year)

Region	Market Share (2024)	Key Growth Drivers	Noteworthy Initiatives
North America	35.8%-42.63% [74] [100]	Strong research infrastructure, presence of key industry players, significant R&D investment	U.S. Materials Genome Initiative [13], Department of Energy funding [100]
Asia-Pacific	Fastest growing region (26.45% CAGR to 2030) [100]	Growing industry development, increased demand for advanced materials, government investments in technology	China's "Made in China 2025" [13], Japan's MI2I program [13], India's National Supercomputing Mission [100]
Europe	Solid position with 20.9% CAGR [14]	Sustainability mandates, coordinated R&D programs, stringent environmental regulations	Horizon Europe Advanced Materials 2030 Initiative [13], German automotive and aerospace applications [100]

The regional variations reflect differences in technological infrastructure, government support, and industrial base. North America's leadership stems from its robust technological infrastructure, significant investments in R&D, and the presence of leading technology companies and academic institutions [101]. Meanwhile, the Asia-Pacific region benefits from the cluster effect of manufacturing hubs, raw-material suppliers, and research centers, which fuels rapid uptake of materials informatics solutions [100].

Key Technological Drivers and Enablers

Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning

AI is poised to transform the materials informatics market by accelerating the discovery, design, and optimization of advanced materials through data-driven approaches [74]. Machine learning algorithms analyze extensive datasets from experiments, simulations, and literature to detect patterns and predict material properties, reducing the need for traditional trial-and-error methods [74]. The integration of AI with high-throughput experimentation and computational materials science enables companies to simultaneously optimize performance, durability, and sustainability [74].

Specific AI technologies making significant impacts include:

• Digital Annealer: Captured 37.63% of the technique market share in 2024 [14]
• Deep Tensor: Projected to expand at the highest CAGR among techniques [14]
• Statistical Analysis: Contributed the highest market share of 46.28% in 2024 [14]
• Generative Foundation Models: Unlocking property prediction capabilities with 2.2% impact on CAGR forecast [100]

The widespread adoption of cloud computing platforms has been instrumental in democratizing access to materials informatics tools. Cloud infrastructure held 65.80% of the materials informatics market size in 2024, offering pay-as-you-go high-performance computing (HPC) that eliminates capital purchases [100]. This elastic scaling matches compute load to project needs, making advanced computational resources accessible to startups and universities that couldn't otherwise afford such capabilities.

Significant challenges remain in data quality and standardization. Most experimental datasets reside inside corporate vaults, curbing model generalizability and amplifying bias [100]. Computational repositories face reproducibility challenges, and high-dimensional metadata is often missing [100]. The lack of high-quality, standardized, and interoperable datasets hampers accurate predictive modeling and slows down material development [101].

Materials Informatics in the Open Science Ecosystem

The open science movement has fundamentally shaped the development of materials informatics, promoting principles of transparency, accessibility, and collaborative innovation. The European Commission outlines Open Science as "...a new approach to the scientific process based on cooperative work and new ways of diffusing knowledge by using digital technologies and new collaborative tools" [39]. This philosophy aligns perfectly with the infrastructure requirements of data-driven materials science.

Open Data Initiatives and Materials Databases

The initiative to make data openly accessible can be traced to efforts to establish scientific global data centers in the 1950s, largely as a way to store data long-term and make it internationally accessible [39]. In contemporary materials science, this tradition continues through various open data initiatives:

• Government-led programs: The U.S. Materials Genome Initiative (MGI) directly supports material informatics tools and open databases [14]
• International consortia: Collaborative efforts across Japan and the USA have established notable materials informatics consortia [1]
• Open-access repositories: Platforms like arXiv (established in 1991) pioneered open access to scientific publications, paving the way for materials data sharing [39]

However, significant tensions remain between the ideals of open science and commercial realities. IP-related hesitancy to share high-value experimental data presents a medium-term restraint on market growth with a -1.5% impact on CAGR forecast [100]. Most experimental datasets sit inside corporate vaults, curbing model generalizability and amplifying bias [100].

The Future of Open Science in Materials Informatics

The open science movement continues to evolve, with several developments particularly relevant to materials informatics:

• Open Peer Review: Moving toward complete transparency in the review process to deter professional misconduct and credit reviewers for their work [98]
• Open Access Mandates: Over 860 research and funding organizations worldwide had adopted open access mandates as of April 2017 [98]
• Open Source Software: Development of community-driven computational tools and platforms

The tension between open science principles and commercial interests represents a significant challenge for the field. As noted in the search results, "Refusal to adapt may leave [publishers] on the losing side of this culture war" [98], with nearly 88% of surveyed Science Magazine readers seeing nothing wrong with downloading pirated papers and three in five having actually used Sci-Hub in the past [98].

Sector-Specific Adoption and Application Analysis

Industry Vertical Adoption Patterns

Materials informatics finds application across diverse industry verticals, with varying adoption rates and use cases.

Table 3: Materials Informatics Adoption by Industry Vertical

Industry	Market Share (2024)	Key Applications	Growth Drivers
Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals	25.55%-29.81% [74] [14]	Drug discovery, formulation optimization, chemical process design	High R&D costs, regulatory pressure, need for faster time-to-market
Electronics & Semiconductors	Fastest growing application segment [14]	Advanced chip materials, conductive polymers, battery technologies	Miniaturization demands, performance requirements, competitive pressure
Aerospace & Defense	27.3% CAGR [100]	Lightweight composites, high-temperature alloys, protective coatings	Performance requirements, weight reduction needs, supply chain resilience
Energy	Approximately 30% of market value (battery materials) [97]	Battery chemistries, fuel cell materials, photovoltaics	Renewable transition, energy density requirements, cost reduction pressure

The chemical and pharmaceutical segment remains dominant because these industries require precise, high-performance materials for drug delivery, formulation, and chemical processing [101]. Materials informatics enables predictive modeling of chemical interactions and performance characteristics, reducing the need for extensive lab experiments [101].

Success Stories and Implementation Case Studies

Several documented success stories demonstrate the tangible benefits of materials informatics implementation:

• Battery Materials Development: A leading EV manufacturer used AI-driven predictive modeling to develop next-generation batteries, reducing discovery cycle from 4 years to under 18 months and lowering R&D costs by 30% [14]
• Chemical Innovation: BASF allocated EUR 2.1 billion (USD 2.3 billion) to R&D in 2024, with battery and green-chemistry priorities leveraging materials informatics approaches [100]
• Accelerated Discovery: Companies deploying autonomous experimentation platforms report tenfold reductions in time-to-market for new formulations and unlock compositional spaces that would be cost-prohibitive under conventional trial-and-error [100]

Implementation Roadmap: Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Implementing a successful materials informatics strategy requires careful planning and execution across multiple dimensions. The following workflow represents a generalized experimental protocol for materials informatics applications.

Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Successful implementation of materials informatics requires both computational and experimental resources. The following table details key "research reagent solutions" essential for establishing materials informatics capabilities.

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents and Tools for Materials Informatics

Tool Category	Specific Solutions	Function & Application
Data Management	ELN/LIMS Software, Cloud Data Platforms, Materials Data Spaces	Collect, store, manage, and share large-scale materials datasets securely and efficiently [1] [13]
AI/ML Platforms	Citrine Informatics, Schrodinger ML Tools, Kebotix AI Platform	Analyze patterns in materials data to predict properties, discover new materials, and optimize formulations [99] [13]
Simulation Tools	MedeA Environment, Materials Studio, Quantum Computing Emulators	Simulate material behavior and generate synthetic data using computational methods [99] [97]
Experimental Automation	High-Throughput Experimentation, Laboratory Robotics, Autonomous Labs	Automate material synthesis and characterization to generate consistent, high-quality data [1] [100]
Data Analytics	Statistical Analysis Packages, Digital Annealer, Deep Tensor	Perform specialized computations for optimization, pattern recognition, and prediction [14] [13]

Implementation Challenges and Mitigation Strategies

Despite the promising potential, organizations face several significant challenges when implementing materials informatics:

• Data Scarcity and Quality: "Insufficient data volume and quality" substantially impedes development and adoption of material informatics [99]. Mitigation strategies include implementing small-data techniques, leveraging transfer learning, and developing data generation protocols.
• Skills Gap: "Shortage of materials-aware data scientists" presents a major barrier, with surveys showing gaps in curricula that leave graduates underprepared for data-centric tasks [100]. Companies address this through lengthy in-house training while offering premium salaries [100].
• Implementation Costs: The "high cost of implementation" restrains market growth, particularly for small and mid-sized businesses [74] [13]. Costs include software licenses, data integration, computational infrastructure, and skilled personnel.
• Interoperability: "Siloed proprietary databases" curb model generalizability and amplify bias [100]. Shared-database efforts stumble over competitive concerns, particularly in quantum materials and sustainable chemistry [100].

Future Outlook and Strategic Recommendations

Emerging Technologies and Future Capabilities

The materials informatics landscape continues to evolve rapidly, with several emerging technologies poised to transform the field:

• Quantum Machine Learning: Potential to solve complex materials problems that are currently intractable with classical computing [97]
• Autonomous Laboratories: Self-driving labs blend reinforcement learning with collaborative robots that operate 24/7, feeding real-time data into predictive models [100]
• Generative AI for Materials: Inverse-design algorithms that can propose novel material structures meeting specific property requirements [100]
• Blockchain for Materials Data Management: Potential applications in tracking materials provenance and ensuring data integrity [97]
• Neuromorphic Computing: More efficient approaches to materials modeling that mimic biological neural networks [97]

Strategic Recommendations for Stakeholders

Based on the market analysis and adoption trends, the following strategic recommendations emerge for different stakeholders:

• For Researchers: Develop interdisciplinary skills combining materials science with data science; embrace open science principles while understanding IP considerations; focus on data quality rather than just quantity.
• For R&D Organizations: Start with well-defined pilot projects with clear success metrics; invest in data infrastructure as strategic assets; develop partnerships across academia, industry, and consortia.
• For Executives: View materials informatics as strategic capability rather than cost center; balance proprietary advantage with collaborative innovation; develop talent strategies addressing the interdisciplinary skills gap.
• For Policy Makers: Support open data initiatives while respecting IP protection; fund infrastructure development with long-term horizons; promote standards development and interoperability.

The materials informatics market presents substantial growth opportunities over the coming decade, with projections indicating expansion at CAGRs between 9.0% and 22.58% through 2034 [1] [74]. This growth will be driven by continued adoption of AI and ML technologies, increasing demand for sustainable materials, and the development of more sophisticated data infrastructure. The open science movement will continue to influence the field, promoting collaboration, data sharing, and transparency, though tensions with commercial interests will persist.

The successful implementation of materials informatics requires careful attention to data quality, interdisciplinary collaboration, and strategic planning. Organizations that effectively leverage these approaches stand to gain significant competitive advantages through accelerated innovation cycles, reduced R&D costs, and enhanced material performance. As the field evolves, emerging technologies like quantum machine learning, autonomous laboratories, and advanced generative AI will further transform materials discovery and development, potentially revolutionizing how we design and deploy advanced materials across critical sectors including energy, healthcare, electronics, and sustainable technologies.

Conclusion

The integration of open science principles with materials informatics is not merely a trend but a fundamental transformation of the research landscape. The key takeaways reveal that a collaborative, data-centric approach is critical for overcoming the persistent challenges of cost, timeline, and reproducibility in drug discovery and materials design. The successful implementation of FAIR data principles, robust open infrastructures like OPTIMADE, and pre-competitive models such as the SGC provides a proven blueprint for accelerating innovation. Looking forward, the maturation of AI, the expansion of autonomous laboratories, and the growing embrace of open-source business models will further dissolve traditional R&D barriers. For biomedical and clinical research, this evolution promises a future where the discovery of novel therapies and sustainable materials is dramatically faster, more inclusive, and more directly aligned with solving pressing human and planetary health challenges. The future of innovation is open, collaborative, and data-driven.

References

• 1. Materials Informatics 2025-2035: Markets, Strategies, Players [https://www.idtechex.com/en/research-report/materials-informatics-2025/1096]
• 2. Transforming Materials Development Through Data Analytics [https://www.nttdata.com/global/en/insights/focus/2025/060]
• 3. Open Databases Integration for Materials Design [https://www.cecam.org/workshop-details/open-databases-integration-for-materials-design-1451]
• 4. Open Concepts and Principles · GitBook [https://open-science-training-handbook.github.io/Open-Science-Training-Handbook_EN/02OpenScienceBasics/01OpenConceptsAndPrinciples.html]
• 5. Materials informatics: A review of AI and machine learning ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352492825020379]
• 6. Materials Informatics [https://www.mpie.de/5013829/matinf]
• 7. Foundation models for materials discovery – current state ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41524-025-01538-0]
• 8. Introduction to Materials Informatics [https://citrine.io/resources/introduction-to-materials-informatics/]
• 9. An Introduction to Materials Informatics: From Fundamental ... [https://matlantis.com/en/resources/blog/what-is-materials-informatics/]
• 10. Open science falling behind in the era of artificial intelligence [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12328315/]
• 11. Materials informatics [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369702105711238]
• 12. A framework for materials informatics education through ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10153775/]
• 13. Materials Informatics Market Size to Hit USD ... [https://www.precedenceresearch.com/material-informatics-market]
• 14. Material Informatics Market to Grow at 20.80% CAGR ... [https://finance.yahoo.com/news/material-informatics-market-grow-20-113400363.html]
• 15. The R&D productivity challenge: transforming ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359644625002077]
• 16. 2025 life sciences outlook | Deloitte Insights [https://www.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/industry/health-care/life-sciences-and-health-care-industry-outlooks/2025-life-sciences-executive-outlook.html]
• 17. 2025 World Preview: Pharma Growth Steady Amid Turbulent ... [https://www.evaluate.com/thought-leadership/2025-world-preview/]
• 18. Next in pharma 2025: The future is now [https://www.pwc.com/us/en/industries/pharma-life-sciences/pharmaceutical-industry-trends.html]
• 19. Workforce Utilization Benchmarks, 2H 2025: Productivity ... [https://www.activtrak.com/blog/workforce-utilization-benchmarks/]
• 20. Policy Guidelines promoting Open in Low... Science Open Data sharing [https://www.research.ed.ac.uk/en/publications/open-science-policy-guidelines-promoting-open-data-sharing-in-low/]
• 21. FAIR Principles [https://www.go-fair.org/fair-principles/]
• 22. How to make your data FAIR [http://www.openaire.eu/how-to-make-your-data-fair]
• 23. The Benefits of Pre-Competitive Collaboration in ... [https://www.ddw-online.com/the-benefits-of-pre-competitive-collaboration-in-the-pharmaceutical-industry-1310-201510/]
• 24. Materials Cloud [https://www.go-fair.org/implementation-networks/overview/materials-cloud/]
• 25. FAIR for AI: An interdisciplinary and international ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-023-02298-6]
• 26. A Highly Opinionated List of Open Source Materials ... [https://github.com/ncfrey/resources]
• 27. TYPES OF PRECOMPETITIVE COLLABORATIONS - NCBI [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK210028/]
• 28. Policy Brief: Pre-Competitive R&D Consortia [https://americancompass.org/policy-brief-pre-competitive-rd-consortia/]
• 29. OPTIMADE | Open Databases Integration for Materials Design [https://optimade.org/]
• 30. OPTIMADE, an API for exchanging materials data [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-021-00974-z]
• 31. Crystallography Open Database: What's New? [https://www.crystallography.net/cod/new.php]
• 32. Crystallography Open Database [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystallography_Open_Database]
• 33. PubChem – Research Data Services [https://digitalscholarship.nl/rds/service/pubchem/]
• 34. Crystallography Open Database (COD) [https://www.datacc.org/en/warehouses/crystallography-open-database-cod/]
• 35. Materials-Consortia/OPTIMADE: Specification of a common ... [https://github.com/Materials-Consortia/OPTIMADE]
• 36. Developments and applications of the OPTIMADE API for ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2024/dd/d4dd00039k]
• 37. Preparing FAIR data for reuse and reproducibility [https://data.research.cornell.edu/data-management/sharing/fair/]
• 38. Making Your Research Data FAIR with OSF: A Practical ... [https://www.cos.io/blog/making-research-data-fair]
• 39. Data‐Driven Materials Science: Status, Challenges, and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6839624/]
• 40. Open science [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_science]
• 41. Advancing materials discovery through artificial intelligence [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352940725003981]
• 42. How Synergy Utilizes AI/ML to Solve Complex Problems [https://www.synergybis.com/2023/11/09/how-synergy-utilizes-ai-ml-to-solve-complex-problems/]
• 43. Materials Cloud, a platform for open computational science [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-00637-5]
• 44. SGC Open Science Policy [https://www.thesgc.org/about/open-science]
• 45. A Roadmap for Open Science Drug Discovery [https://www.thesgc.org/blogs/transforming-hit-finding-computational-endeavor-roadmap-open-science-drug-discovery]
• 46. Impact [https://www.thesgc.org/about/impact]
• 47. Structural Genomics Consortium: Home [https://www.thesgc.org/]
• 48. The Structural Genomics Consortium: A Knowledge ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5396214/]
• 49. Opportunities in Open Science, Metascience, and Artificial ... [https://cset.georgetown.edu/publication/opportunities-in-open-science-metascience-and-artificial-intelligence/]
• 50. 2025 Open Science Symposium [https://cmu-lib.github.io/OSS-2025/]
• 51. How Materials Informatics Platforms are Revolutionizing ... [https://www.materials.zone/blog/how-materials-informatics-platforms-are-revolutionizing-materials-development-and-optimization]
• 52. Research Data Management : Open Science and Open Data [https://guides.lib.virginia.edu/RDM/open-science-and-data]
• 53. Research Data Management in the Canadian Context [https://ecampusontario.pressbooks.pub/canadardm/chapter/rdm-open-science-movement-perspectives/]
• 54. ELN and LIMS Integration | Fast-Track Product Development [https://www.starlims.com/resources/the-potent-combination-of-eln-and-lims/]
• 55. International initiatives to enhance awareness and uptake of ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11919529/]
• 56. A Fully Integrated LIMS for Enterprise R&D Teams [https://www.uncountable.com/integrated-laboratory-information-management-system-lims]
• 57. Workflow Basics - Materials informatics for structure- ... [https://www.molmd.org/mispr/html/workflows/basics.html]
• 58. Understanding Data Sparsity in Data Warehousing and ... [https://medium.com/@sathishdba/understanding-data-sparsity-in-data-warehousing-and-analytics-79965d348cc8]
• 59. The Strategic Value of Materials Informatics [https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/strategic-value-materials-informatics-markus-j-buehler-c6vke]
• 60. Resources: Materials Informatics Lecture 17: Best Practices ... [https://nanohub.org/resources/39536]
• 61. The Curse of Dimensionality: De-identification Challenges ... [https://fpf.org/blog/the-curse-of-dimensionality-de-identification-challenges-in-the-sharing-of-highly-dimensional-datasets/]
• 62. Strategies for Overcoming Barriers to Open Innovation [https://www.herox.com/blog/939-five-barriers-to-adopting-open-innovation-and-how]
• 63. Overcoming Common Barriers to Collaboration, Part 1 [https://www.uxmatters.com/mt/archives/2017/10/overcoming-common-barriers-to-collaboration-part-1.php]
• 64. From data to drug candidates [https://www.drugdiscoverytrends.com/from-data-to-drug-candidates-optimizing-informatics-for-ml-and-genai/]
• 65. Cultural barriers and how to overcome them in your global ... [https://eurac.com/cultural-barriers-and-how-to-overcome-them-in-your-global-company-as-a-global-leader/]
• 66. Modernizing drug discovery informatics with AI and ... [https://www.selectscience.net/webinar/modernizing-drug-discovery-informatics-with-ai-and-machine-learning]
• 67. Making Open Science Work for Science and Society - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6792383/]
• 68. Materials Data Science Ontology(MDS-Onto) [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-025-04938-5]
• 69. A Method for Extending Ontologies with Application to the ... [https://datascience.codata.org/articles/dsj-2019-050]
• 70. Machine learning in materials informatics: recent ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41524-017-0056-5]
• 71. of Big Challenges Analysis - PMC Data [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4236847/]
• 72. Open science - ScienceDirect [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982223006681]
• 73. Multi-Variable Batch Bayesian Optimization in Materials Research... [https://arxiv.org/html/2504.03943v3]
• 74. Material Informatics Market Size | Companies Analysis 2025 [https://www.towardschemandmaterials.com/insights/material-informatics-market]
• 75. Business Models for Journals [https://open-access.network/en/information/financing/business-models-for-journals]
• 76. The fundamentals of open access and open research [https://www.springernature.com/gp/open-science/about/the-fundamentals-of-open-access-and-open-research]
• 77. Alternative Funding Models for Open Access Publishing [https://opusproject.eu/openscience-news/alternative-funding-models-for-open-access-publishing/]
• 78. Recommendations on Open Science Rewards and Incentives [https://datascience.codata.org/articles/10.5334/dsj-2025-015]
• 79. Open Science Supports Research Assessment [https://mdpiblog.wordpress.sciforum.net/2025/06/03/open-research-assessment/]
• 80. Are open science metrics at odds with research assessment ... [https://thepublicationplan.com/2025/06/18/are-open-science-metrics-at-odds-with-research-assessment-reform/]
• 81. Open Science round-up: Rethinking research assessment ... [https://council.science/news/open-science-round-up-research-assessment/]
• 82. The Economic Impacts of Open Science: A Rapid Evidence ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/7/3/46]
• 83. Top 6 Visualizations for Quantitative Data Analysis Methods [https://chartexpo.com/blog/quantitative-data-analysis-methods]
• 84. Data Analysis and Visualization - Research ... [https://guides.library.txstate.edu/research-data/analysis-visualization]
• 85. Measuring the effectiveness and impact of an open ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S135964461730034X]
• 86. New public-private partnership based on the interactive ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094576525000803]
• 87. Agile AI Partnerships: A Public-Private FLEXible and ... [https://www.belfercenter.org/research-analysis/agile-ai-partnerships-public-private-flexible-and-smart-framework-national]
• 88. Materials Informatics: Statistical Modeling in Material Science [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27870246/]
• 89. Smart Materials, Smarter R&D: Materials Informatics in 2025 [https://www.idtechex.com/en/research-article/smart-materials-smarter-r-d-materials-informatics-in-2025/33248]
• 90. Exclusive-AI lab Lila Sciences tops $1.3 billion valuation ... [https://finance.yahoo.com/news/exclusive-ai-lab-lila-sciences-102014139.html]
• 91. Top ten methodologies in Materials Informatics and ... [https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/top-ten-methodologies-materials-informatics-examples-how-buehler]
• 92. Best Practice Leads to the Best Materials Informatics [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590238520302939]
• 93. Scaling Materials Discovery with Self-Driving Labs [https://ifp.org/scaling-materials-discovery-with-self-driving-labs/]
• 94. The role of flow chemistry in self-driving labs [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2590238525002486]
• 95. Science acceleration and accessibility with self-driving labs [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-59231-1]
• 96. Accelerating the Materials Genome Initiative with Self ... [https://www.nae.edu/340998/Accelerating-the-Materials-Genome-Initiative-with-SelfDriving-Labs]
• 97. The Global Materials Informatics Market 2025-2035 [https://www.futuremarketsinc.com/the-global-materials-informatics-market-2025-2035/]
• 98. The open science movement [https://www.physoc.org/magazine-articles/the-open-science-movement-revolution-is-underway/]
• 99. Material Informatics Market Size, Share, Trends, 2025 To ... [https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/material-informatics-market-237816259.html]
• 100. Material Informatics Market Size, Share, 2025-2030 Outlook [https://www.mordorintelligence.com/industry-reports/material-informatics-market]
• 101. Material Informatics Market Size to Cross USD ... [https://finance.yahoo.com/news/material-informatics-market-size-cross-140000447.html]