How to maximize your grant score by publishing negative results: a new Open Science initiative
- Natalia Iunusova
- Jul 6
- 9 min read
Foreword
Isabel Barriuso Ortega and Pablo Hernández Malmierca, the co-founders of Research Agora, visited us in March for our ReproducibiliTea meeting to present evolving publication formats and discuss how they can simplify the publication of research findings, ultimately “making every result count.”
As strong proponents of Open Science and reproducible practices, we at AdvanSci Research Solutions would like to highlight their promising initiative, which expands the avenues through which scientific results can be disseminated, and how adopting these new platforms to report negative results and failed replications can move your career forward.
Content
The hidden cost of unpublished results
The reproducibility crisis: why negative results are costing you grant points
A practical taxonomy of invisible results
From invisible results to citable outputs
How Marbles align with grant evaluation criteria
Why researchers are publishing and reviewing negative results
How to include Marbles with negative results in your next grant
Conclusion
Open science practices, such as pre-registration, FAIR data, documentation, and transparency, are increasingly expected of applicants by major funders, including the Swedish Research Council/Vetenskaprådet (VR), ALF, Vinnova, and the European Research Council (ERC). At the same time, a new generation of platforms is emerging to support these practices, making negative results (and other ‘invisible’ knowledge) citable and peer-reviewed. What was once overlooked can now become a measurable research output that can strengthen your grant proposal.
One enterprise that is developing such a platform is Research Agora, which has introduced a publishing format that is designed to formally recognize negative results and other traditionally unpublished data. In a recent article in Cybrarians Journal (https://doi.org/10.70000/cj.2026.78.718), Research Agora describes this initiative as a shift “from hidden data to dynamic reproducible knowledge.”
The concept is clear: what was previously disregarded can now visibly strengthen your scientific profile. Negative results may instead become a strategic resource for researchers in an increasingly competitive funding environment.
The hidden cost of unpublished results
If negative results can strengthen your track record, what happens when they remain hidden?
The scale of inefficiency in biomedical research is difficult to ignore. Iain Chalmers and Paul Glasziou (2009) have estimated that around 85% of research investment is wasted. More recently, Rosengaard et al. (2024) categorized research waste into five types, highlighting a particularly overlooked category: invisible waste.
Invisible waste includes:
Unpublished null or negative results
Abandoned exploratory paths that could inform future studies
Replications or failed replication attempts that are never shared
These outputs are inherent to the research process: evidence of the paths that are taken, the hypotheses that are tested, and the methodological constraints that are encountered. Ultimately, they play a critical role in the fine-tuning of research directions and preventing others from repeating the same mistakes.
Yet, traditional publishing systems rarely reward these contributions. Journals tend to favor novelty and positive findings, leaving a substantial portion of scientifically valid knowledge inaccessible. The invisibility of these findings leads to significant inefficiencies across the entire research ecosystem.
From a funding perspective, this oversight creates a structural disadvantage. If your work is not visible, it cannot be evaluated. And if it cannot be evaluated, it is unable to strengthen your case for funding. In other words, a significant, high-quality component of your scientific work may be missing from your grant narrative.
The reproducibility crisis: why negative results are costing you grant points
Reproducibility is a cornerstone of the scientific process, and it has become an increasing concern, especially in biomedicine. A landmark survey, published in Nature by Monya Baker (2016), found that 70% of researchers fail to reproduce others’ experiments and that approximately half of them are unable to reproduce their own work. In the biomedical sciences, replication studies of published research have reported low reproducibility rates and smaller effects (e.g., Errington et al., 2021; Amaral et al., 2025).
From a grant reviewer’s perspective, a lack of transparency creates an information gap and raises concerns regarding reproducibility. When negative results, failed replications, or methodological limitations are not reported, reviewers are forced to infer feasibility and reliability, which they often tend to do conservatively.
Across Swedish and European funding bodies, risk assessment is central to funding decisions. ERC proposals, for example, explicitly require applicants to address project risk and mitigation strategies. Most funders are increasingly emphasizing robustness, data management, and reproducibility.
Consequently, when evaluating proposals, reviewers not only focus on novelty—they also assess how the project’s weaknesses are addressed. Proposals that include transparent reporting signal methodological maturity, realistic planning, and awareness of potential pitfalls:
Negative results show that risk has been explored, not ignored: by eliminating certain hypotheses or paths of research, other avenues can be pursued with greater justification and vigor.
Replication efforts ensure that the foundation on which the project is built is solid.
Together, these elements ensure that resources will be used efficiently and that the proposed research is grounded in a solid understanding of what does and does not work. Ultimately, reporting the entire research process demonstrates the qualities that reviewers associate with lower-risk, fundable research.
A practical taxonomy of invisible results
One of the historical barriers to publishing negative results has been the lack of a clear framework. What counts as a meaningful contribution? How should it be categorized? And how can it be evaluated?
Research Agora addresses this challenge with a structured taxonomy through its core publication format: Marbles.
Developed by former biomedical researchers Isabel Barriuso-Ortega, PhD, and Pablo Hernández Malmierca, PhD, Marbles transform heterogeneous ‘unpublishable’ experiments into standardized, organized scientific outputs. Their goals are clear: to reduce research waste and tackle the reproducibility crisis while ensuring that all contributions are recognized and count toward researchers’ careers.
Marbles are organized into five categories:
Replicate: Replications of an experiment that yield the same results
Flag: Failed attempts to reproduce an experiment
Confirmation: Alternative methods that validate previously reported findings
Build on: Extensions of reported findings that confirm a new hypothesis
Dead end: Well-executed experiments that do not confirm the proposed hypothesis (i.e., negative or null results)
This classification creates a shared language for invisible results, allowing reviewers and funders to interpret these outputs consistently and easily. Instead of ambiguity, you get structure. Instead of dismissal, you get recognition.
From invisible results to citable outputs
A clear taxonomy is only useful if it translates into something that researchers can actually use and, crucially, something that counts. Here is how Marbles can make a difference.
Unlike traditional research articles, Marbles are designed to be concise and focused. They are linked to an already published paper and concentrate on what matters most: methods and results. Their streamlined format, centered around a single figure, allows individual experiments to be shared as modular, standalone outputs.
But their real worth lies in how they are integrated into the research ecosystem. Each Marble is peer-reviewed, open access, and assigned a DOI. It is not an informal note or a repository entry but a fully citable research output. Marbles can be listed on your CV, linked to your ORCID profile, and included in your track record.
Their value extends beyond authorship. Research Agora operates a transparent, open peer-review system, in which reviews are visible and attributable. Reviewing is no longer invisible labor, instead becoming a recognized contribution by grant applicants who can demonstrate critical evaluation skills, field expertise, and service to the research community.
Because they are connected to an existing article, multiple Marbles can accumulate around the same piece of research. Replicates, Confirmations, Flags, Build-ons, and Dead-ends can all be linked back to the original study, creating a richer and more complete picture of its quality and impact.
Marbles do not replace traditional publications—they complement them. They do not aim to showcase breakthrough discoveries but rather document the entire research process, translating into something highly valuable for funding: rigor, transparency, and solid scientific productivity.
How Marbles align with grant evaluation criteria
The shift toward recognizing broader research outputs is part of the wide evolution in research assessment. Such initiatives as CoARA, DORA, and the Leiden Manifesto advocate moving beyond journal-based metrics and evaluating quality instead of quantity. These campaigns explicitly value transparency and openness and promote the recognition of diverse outputs beyond the traditional article.
These principles are already reflected in the criteria of major funders in Europe. Recent grant calls include new requirements for applicants, such as narrative CVs, data management plans that are aligned with open science practices, and an assessment of impact.
Research Agora is explicitly aligned with this reform, enabling researchers to go beyond simply stating a commitment to open science and instead demonstrating it with concrete outputs. Additionally, by linking multiple Marbles to existing publications, Research Agora creates new quality and impact measures for published literature that are based on accumulated evidence.
Why researchers are publishing and reviewing negative results
A persistent misconception in academia is that only shiny, positive results reflect success. Following this logic, minor findings and negative results may be seen as a failure. However, in practice, they demonstrate many strengths, such as honest reporting and a clear learning trajectory.
Margaux Quiniou, one of the first Marble authors, highlights another dimension: collaborative progress. “I hope that sharing this ‘dead end’ will prevent other researchers from hitting the same wall and losing valuable time,” she states.
Reviewers are also part of this shift. For early-career researchers, in particular, this platform creates an opportunity to demonstrate expertise and contribute to their field. Marble reviewer Stephani Schmitz notes that taking part in this process as a reviewer feels like contributing to something bigger. After completing the revision process for the first Marble at Research Agora, she sent this message to the team: “I really love your mission to give space to results that would otherwise stay hidden and to do so in an open and transparent way. It feels meaningful to contribute as a reviewer, even though I’m still a PhD researcher.”
How to include Marbles in your next grant
Adopting open science practices is most effective when they are integrated throughout the proposal, not added as an afterthought. Here are sections for which emphasizing open practices can be beneficial:
A. In the methodology section
There are several ways that you can reinforce your open science and reproducibility efforts:
Include an explicit focus on replication and validation. Here, Replicate and Confirmation Marbles can be used as hard evidence.
Emphasize collaborative, team-based approaches to increase efficiency (i.e. “team science”).
Reference platforms like Research Agora and the Centre of Open Science in organizing and documenting the various steps of the research process, demonstrating transparency.
B. In the track record or narrative CV
Expand what counts as research output:
Highlight contributions to open and reproducible science. For example, include your published and reviewed Marbles and list datasets, codes, and protocols.
Focus on describing the quality and impact of your research instead of on the type of contribution or the prestige of the journal.
If your publications have linked Marbles, present them as data-driven evidence of continued validation and scientific impact of your research.
C. In the project’s risk and mitigation strategy section
Having a clear path and contingencies is an opportunity to show that uncertainty is anticipated and managed systematically. Here is how you can use open science to showcase your resource management skills:
Acknowledge potential methodological drawbacks and describe how they will be monitored throughout the project.
Include contingency plans that are informed by prior negative results or failed approaches. For example, explain what you learned from your results from Flag or Dead-end Marbles.
Demonstrate that key assumptions, protocols, or preliminary findings have already undergone replication or validation efforts. For example, you can refer to Confirmation, Replication, and Build-on Marbles.
Explain how transparent reporting, including the publication of negative or null results, will reduce unnecessary duplication and increase the efficiency and impact of the project.
D. In the data management plan
This is another opportunity to focus on your commitment to open science beyond the basics:
Commit to transparent reporting and sharing of your data.
Apply FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable).
Describe reuse pathways for both positive and negative results (e.g., Marble publications for additional findings that may not fit the paper).
This aligns directly with evolving funder expectations and strengthens the overall credibility and feasibility of the proposal.
Conclusion
Open science is increasingly central to how research is evaluated, funded, and trusted.
Most grant applicants today mention open science, but few integrate it practically and meaningfully throughout their research process. This creates a clear opportunity to strengthen your next research grant proposal.
Researchers who adopt tools and practices that make their work more visible, reproducible, and reusable will not only align with evolving funder expectations but also shape the criteria for reliability and research quality. This is where platforms like Research Agora offer a practical way to turn invisible work into structured, visible impact.
Explore this platform, contribute as a reviewer, and consider submitting your first Marble. Because your invisible work might be exactly what strengthens your next proposal.
Testimonials
Scientific Researcher (PhD Candidate) at University of Zurich
"You know who benefits from your negative results? Literally everyone 💪..."
Stephani Schmitz
Doctoral Researcher
at Erasmus MC
"I just wanted to say how much I appreciate what you’re building..."
References
Amaral OB et al. (2025) Estimating the replicability of Brazilian biomedical science. biorXiv.
American Society for Cell Biology (2012) San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA). Retrieved from https://sfdora.org/.Baker M (2016) 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Nature 533:452–454.
Barriuso-Ortega, I., & Hernández-Malmierca, P. (2026). Research Agora: from hidden data to dynamic, reproducible knowledge. Cybrarians Journal.
Chalmers I, Glasziou P (2009) Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. The Lancet 374:86–89.
Errington TM, Mathur M, Soderberg CK, Denis A, Perfito N, IornsE, Nosek BA (2021) Investigating the replicability of preclinical cancer biology. eLife 10.
European Commission & CoARA signatories (2022) Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment and launch of the Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA). Retrieved from https://coara.eu/.
Hicks D, Wouters P, Waltman L, de Rijcke S, Rafols I (2015) Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature 520:429–431.
Rosengaard LO, Andersen MZ, Rosenberg J, Fonnes S (2024) Five aspects of research waste in biomedicine: A scoping review. J Evid Based Med 17:351–359.
Speaker and guest author
Isabel Barriuso Ortega, PhD, COO and co-founder of Research Agora, a publication platform that fosters a more accessible, transparent, and collaborative research ecosystem.
Editor
Sean Kim, PhD, is a medical writer at AdvanSci Research Solutions. He has been a medical writer since 2006, writing extensively on therapeutics for a wide range of areas.
Comments