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

Source: https://onco.cc/ideas/idea-fund-open-results-bonus/  
OnCo record `idea-fund-open-results-bonus` (Idea). Data CC BY-NC 4.0, attribute "Data from OnCo (onco.cc)"; commercial use needs a licence.

## TL;DR

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.

## Summary

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.

## Fields

- Kind: Idea
- Last checked: 2026-09-08
- 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.
- Proposed test: 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
- Actor: philanthropy

## Sources

- Bottleneck evidence (Secrecy and intellectual property block collaboration): Danchev et al., Evaluation of data sharing after implementation of the ICMJE data sharing statement requirement (JAMA Netw Open 2021): https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.33972

## Connected records

- ideas: [Pay investigators for finishing and publishing trials, not for enrolling patients](https://onco.cc/ideas/idea-fund-trial-completion-bonus/), [Promote academics for trials completed, data shared and findings replicated](https://onco.cc/ideas/idea-fund-academic-promotion-reform/), [Scoop protection and co-publication norms to reduce academic secrecy](https://onco.cc/ideas/idea-fund-scoop-protection-policy/)
- bottlenecks: [Failures are hidden](https://onco.cc/bottlenecks/b-negative-results/), [Knowledge reaches practice too slowly](https://onco.cc/bottlenecks/b-knowledge-diffusion/), [Secrecy and intellectual property block collaboration](https://onco.cc/bottlenecks/b-ip-collaboration/)
- key papers: [Evaluation of Data Sharing After Implementation of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Data Sharing Statement Requirement](https://onco.cc/key-papers/paper-danchev-jama-netw-open/)

---
JSON: https://onco.cc/api/v1/entities/idea-fund-open-results-bonus.json