The first full round of the predictive modelling competition was run between 2016 and 2017, and was intended to elicit the participation of members of the wider scientific community with expertise in computational chemistry . The competition adhered to the open science principles underpinning the OSM consortium. Specifically, all participants were required to work openly for the duration of the competition, with working and data posted on open Electronic Laboratory Notebooks (ELN) that were made publicly available . The participants were tasked with developing a predictive model using data provided by OSM that included a list of compounds with activity data for both in vitro whole cell potency and PfATP4 ion assays , along with the entire dataset of OSM compounds from previous series ((mostly presumed) inactives). Once the models were developed and deposited, the participants were provided with the molecular identifiers (e.g., SMILES strings) for the 400 compounds contained within the MMV Pathogen Box and were required to rank them in order of predicted activity in the ion assays. The Pathogen Box compounds were at the same time screened for their effects on parasite Na + concentration and pH and the data held back until the models had been submitted. A small cash prize inducement was employed to stimulate interest, despite the risk this brings of making the intrinsic reward for participation more extrinsic. Six diverse, fully-fledged entries were submitted from individuals working in both public and private sectors, with all working shared online (Table ) . These submissions were reviewed by a panel of four judges (Prof. Matthew Todd, A/Prof. Alice Motion (University of Sydney), Dr. Murray Robertson (University of Strathclyde and creator of the previous model in Round 0) and Prof. Alexander Tropsha (University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill)) that evaluated the top twenty ranked compounds from each model against the undisclosed Pathogen Box data. Two entrants developed models that were able to predict correctly two active compounds within their top twenty rankings, with a further model a close third place [39] .