Dear colleagues and open science advocates,
I would like to initiate a discussion regarding a structural barrier that independent researchers face when translating evidence-based findings into public digital tools.
Recently, I attempted to publish a health application on Google Play, which digitizes my peer-reviewed research on office exercises. However, the platform mandates a D-U-N-S number (a commercial/corporate identifier) for all apps in the Health & Fitness category to ensure “accountability and safety.” Due to the loss of my institutional affiliation, establishing a commercial entity is not a viable option for me as an independent researcher.
This situation highlights a systemic flaw in current digital ecosystems: they equate reliability almost exclusively with commercial structures.
The Argument: A commercial registration (D-U-N-S) does not guarantee the scientific validity or safety of a health application. In contrast, academic identifiers like ORCID or Web of Science (WoS) ResearcherID provide a rigorous, transparent, and globally verifiable record of an individual’s expertise, peer-reviewed output, and ethical standing.
In the spirit of open science, tech platforms should integrate these academic IDs as a valid alternative verification pathway for independent scientific developers.
I invite the community’s perspective on the following points:
- Visibility of Independent Science: How can independent researchers publish evidence-based digital tools without being forced to establish commercial entities?
- Advocacy for Policy Change: How can the open science community encourage major tech ecosystems to recognize ORCID as a valid standard for accountability and user safety?
I look forward to hearing your insights or similar experiences.
Best regards,
Rafet IRMAK, PT, PhD