Couldn't be at solo, and don't know if this was covered. But just to state the obvious: that participation in open science can lead to a traditional peer-reviewed publication, which represents a static report of a completed piece of work, and a useful summary of a project once it has reached a milestone. Authorship on this kind of output is thus an incentive to participate.

This does not answer other questions, such as how do we value research outputs that are not suitable for publication. But it does account for a fair amount of research that is done - we would expect valid research to be traditionally "publishable" even though it has been carried out openly. So from the point of view of the RCs, one could then say that a) there can be traditional outputs, but that b) perhaps (*all other things being equal*) one could treat research arising from an open process as preferable for a number of reasons we needn't go through again here. i.e. publications arising from open research are particularly worthy of note.