OnCo
ideasIdea

Funder bonuses for releasing results and data within six months, negatives included

Pay scientists a small bonus, added to their grant, when they post their results and data openly within six months of finishing an experiment, whether the result was positive or not.

Funders add a supplement (for example 5% of the award) paid on verified release of preprints, datasets and code within six months of the end of each funded aim, with an equal bonus for registered negative results. Unlike mandates, which are widely ignored without enforcement, bonuses are self-enforcing and visible. Academic secrecy before publication delays diffusion by one to two years and hides most negative preclinical findings entirely; a small financial reward changes the calculus for labs that currently see only risk in early release.

Hypothesis
Open-results bonuses raise the proportion of funded projects with preprints or data released within six months from a small minority to a majority within two years, with a measurable increase in reported negative results, at a cost under 5% of the portfolio.
Rationale
Behavioural experiments in science funding show that small, certain rewards change compliance more than rarely enforced mandates; the Gates Foundation and Wellcome open-access mandates achieved high compliance only when paired with funding for fees. Registered reports formats show negative results are published when the incentive structure allows.
What would test it
Randomise the bonus across half of a funder's awards for one cycle and compare release timing and negative-result reporting with the other half.
Maturity
speculative
Who has to act
philanthropy
Cost to try
Small (under $1M)
Years to first evidence
2
Bottlenecks it attacks

Connected

6top

Pages like this

not linked directly; found by shared links