If Cochrane diversifies its sources of funding, which new sources do you think would be most important?

  • Ask for legacy donations

  • Be data driven in what we prioritise by looking are annual funding trends to identify which areas are getting increased funds (there is software that tracks this, I think one is called InCites).

  • EU Research Infrastructures funding

  • Promoting requests to the public to leave a % of their estate to Cochrane in their will

  • Crowd sourcing as is done by Wikipedia

  • 1.Charging for publishing all reviews (all open access) - most grants now include cost of publication (tiered/free for LMIC countries) 2. crowdfunding 3. Leave money in a 'will'

  • Fee for service research and training

  • Not aware of any that haven't already been mentioned

  • Professional Health Related Associations

  • Not right now

  • Industry

  • Selling more/different products

  • You seem to have thought of them all

  • Author payment for OA fees - it is a bad strategic decision not to ask authors to pay. Just have an exemption for HINARI authors. Make rich universities pay their researchers' publication fees.

  • modest amounts from individuals who read Cochrane reviews or produce them (like Wikipedia solicitations, or The Guardian)

  • Universities

  • National research councils

  • I think all the funding is covered. The one source of funding that we should avoid is people with vested interests such as pharmaceutical companies and device manufacturers

  • Individual relevant government organization such as workers compensation board

  • NIH, Bill & Mellinda Gates, WHO

  • A business model based on subscription, membership and donations

  • Crowdsourcing / community-commissioned / Patreon model

  • Universities

  • Ad revenue? Sell journal subscriptions? Paid membership level with extra perks (though not extra voice)?

  • microgifts from crowd funding

  • Non AMA medical societies, Academia,health interest groups

  • Pharmaceutical companies

  • crowdfunding; gates' foundation; rather minimizing costs than maximizing income

  • no

  • Clinical societies

  • Individual donations in the form of optional pay per view

  • Providing products and services for a fee, e.g. preparing model RCT protocols, for needed research

  • Legacy, community, regular giving

  • Endowments

  • None

  • No

  • DN/DA

  • universities

  • Sistemas y servicios de salud, asociaciones de pacientes, sociedades cientificas

  • Provide value-added content for machine use -- find funders who would pay for the added value.

  • 1) Profesional Associations 2) Universities 3) Private users

  • NIHR or other equivalent. Perhaps we should consider Pharma?

  • national scientific committes

  • Private funders

  • research grants

  • Government should prioritise evidenced based practice

  • commercialisation of knowledge (training, CME), merchandaising

  • no

  • Holding events and contests with a fee to all participants, generate reviews according to the needs of the pharmaceutical industry in which several laboratories participate

  • Membership fee

  • University centers

  • fund raising initiatives by categories or events ( i.e. sports, auctions

  • Bring several CRGs into a single hub to reduce overheads and staff costs

  • WHO, European Union

  • Sell courses, training people to do systematic reviews.

  • Income from consultancy work

  • Increase charge/ subscription for access to reviews.

  • Cochrane should consider developing a training academy. There are huge profits being made by private entities selling courses based on cochrane methods and (implicit) branding, worlwide.

  • Crowdfunding

  • in kind from hei - you already get this but it can form part of the plan is done well

  • Open access

  • no

  • Not to my knowledge

  • no

  • Article processing charges from author teams

  • Crowdsourcing

  • Publication processing fees from 1. high income authors, 2. funded authors as part of grant OR 3. authors from non-LMIC but non Cochrane supporting regions

  • Surely it has to come from industry??? Who else has the kind of money needed? There must be creative solutions to fire-walling the independence of the reviews - that's USP of Cochrane Reviews

  • Academic institutions

  • No

  • Get major donations to split 1) invest in current costs 2)start an investment portfolio to secure Cochrane's financial future

  • Selling KT products to institutions. Creating a fix deposite out of donations in order to spend the interest only but not the fix deposite

  • Research agencies who want to demonstrate the 'gap' they are addressing

  • crowd sourcing, working with charities and end users to fund specific reviews and sets of reviews

  • Oil, gas, IT idustries, all should donate generously to Cochrane

  • Academic institutions that would like to host Cochrane groups and activities

  • CSR program

  • Capitalise RevMan for non-cochrane authors and private entities (eg. pharma, etc...)

  • no, it is responsibility of governments and international NGOs

  • Academic institutions

  • I am not sure whether the universities have been classified, they can support the programs of Cochrane

  • I do not know.

  • No

  • Private funding under clear ethical rules

  • For profit non direct health sector

  • Income from provision of structured review data to third party users

  • Systematic look for national donors

  • Competitive knowledge transfer projects

  • Franchise the brand and sales of education

  • Novo Nordisk Foundation, Wellcome Trust, and Howard Hughes Medical Institute.

  • Guideline developers including NICE and societies.

  • Individual philanthropists

  • Comissioners of Cochrane Reviews (e.g. WHO)

  • Anything and everything

  • international organisations (UN, WHO...)

  • None

  • Article processing charges