OnCo
ideasIdea

Scoop protection and co-publication norms to reduce academic secrecy

Scientists hide results for fear of being beaten to publication. If journals and funders guaranteed that a preprinted finding cannot be scooped, and encouraged rival groups to publish side by side, sharing would become safe.

Journals in the cancer field adopt explicit scoop-protection policies (a preprint or registered report establishes priority and a competing paper appearing during review does not affect acceptance, as PLOS and eLife have done) and funders count preprints as outputs. Add a co-publication mechanism in which groups working on the same question are matched and encouraged to publish back-to-back with cross-replication, which the field treats as a strength. Secrecy delays diffusion and, by preventing early cross-checking, contributes to irreproducible claims reaching translation.

Hypothesis
In the two years after major oncology journals adopt scoop protection, the share of cancer biology papers preprinted before submission rises by at least half and surveys show a measurable fall in reported withholding of methods and data before publication.
Rationale
Preprinting rates rose sharply in fields where journals signalled acceptance and protection (genomics, neuroscience); the pandemic showed biomedical researchers will share early when norms permit. Back-to-back publication of independent confirmations is already a respected format in structural biology and genetics.
What would test it
Track preprint rates and survey-reported withholding in oncology before and after policy adoption by a coalition of journals and funders, compared with a field without the change.
Maturity
speculative
Who has to act
research
Cost to try
Small (under $1M)
Years to first evidence
2
Bottlenecks it attacks

Connected

5top

Pages like this

not linked directly; found by shared links