This multi-interest holder consensus effort highlights the essential influence and responsibility of Research-Performing Organizations (RPOs) in shaping the quality, transparency, and trustworthiness of scientific research. Despite the use of metrics to assess transparency and openness by academic journals and funders, most RPOs do not yet have metrics/indicators or monitoring that address deep-rooted shortcomings in research practice and assessment. These shortcomings manifest as restricted access to research outputs, poor availability of underlying data and materials, infrequent reproducibility checks and direct replications, and ongoing incidents of research misconduct all contributing to erosion of public trust in research. Such issues are exacerbated by institutional incentive structures that reward the number of publications and journal prestige, while neglecting research credibility, societal relevance, and transparent communication. To respond comprehensively to these challenges, our working group reached consensus on six core practices for RPOs to monitor: data, code, and material sharing; open access publishing; prospective study registration; reporting transparency; disclosures of interest and funding; and verification efforts.Collectively, these six practices offer a pragmatic and flexible framework that RPOs can tailor to their local context. The paper provides an implementation guide for these practices and calls for renewed leadership by RPOs in realigning research(er) assessment and incentives to reward quality, transparency, and trustworthiness in research, closing persistent gaps, and reinforcing science’s credibility and utility for society.