Log an idea you may never get to, before it disappears.
Terms of Use · 13 July 2026
Clear terms for an open registry.
Use of Research Idea Registry is subject to acceptance of its Terms of Use. Public reading remains free. AI-assisted contribution tools are available only to people aged 18 or older.
Good questions
deserve a future.
A public home for promising research ideas—properly framed, classified and ready for someone to take further.
What this is for
A good research idea should not depend on your having time to pursue it.
The idea library
Find a question worth
staying with.
Browse qualified briefs by academic home, source and stage. Each record shows its gap, provenance and possible university study pathways.
Informal commuters often wait in the hottest, least shaded parts of a city. Transport traces, surface temperature and health data could reveal where small cooling investments would matter most.
A comparative study of AI-supported tutoring in multilingual classrooms, looking at learning outcomes and the survival of local examples, idioms and teaching practices.
Many community energy trials end when grant funding does. This idea compares the governance, tariff and maintenance choices behind systems that remain useful five years later.
Small edge and enterprise data centres may create a dispersed water burden that is poorly measured and rarely visible to city planners.
Formal recovery metrics can miss the unpaid, relational work that gets households back on their feet. This project maps those care networks and the burdens they carry.
Cities are beginning to dim public lighting, but few programmes connect policy changes to multi-species ecological outcomes over time.
A registry, not a workspace
Ideas become useful
when they are legible.
Research Idea Registry preserves the question, knowledge gap, likely demands and provenance. Focused annotations cannot rewrite a contributor’s intent; exceptionally strong corrections may update classification or generate a separately attributed idea.
Gemini turns a hunch or paper excerpt into a neutral, researchable academic brief for the contributor to confirm.
The academic gate checks readiness and adds a separate related-research signal. Prior work informs the idea; it does not automatically exclude it.
The original record stays attributed. Readers can signal a study, connect final research or add a tightly scoped scholarly annotation.
Academic gate
AI structures.
An auditor challenges.
Gemini shapes the draft into a researchable brief. A separate automated audit checks its clarity, integrity and academic fit before it can appear.
Automated, but explainedUncertain ideas are returned with practical suggestions. The gate checks whether an idea is ready to consider—not whether its proposition is already true.
Clarify the question, context and possible direction without changing its intent.
Check researchability, integrity, duplication signals and suitable academic fields.
Publish a qualified brief, or return concise suggestions for revision.
Academic Constitution v1.1
No hidden rules.
No waiting room.
The public standard is versioned and applies equally across disciplines. The automated system may admit, request revision or reject; it never sends a submission to a human moderator.
- The registry evaluates whether an idea is researchable and sufficiently specified, not whether its proposition is true or politically agreeable.
- No uncertain submission is published. It is returned with concrete revision questions and may be resubmitted.
- Sensitive subjects are not excluded merely for being sensitive; they must still pass the same neutrality, evidence and ethics tests.
- Automated decisions remain visible through a versioned checklist, score and explanation attached to every admitted idea.
- AI may academically edit a rough submission before publication, but the contributor confirms the final wording and owns the registered record. Other users cannot rewrite it.
- Academic quality and provenance are reported separately. Journal identity or impact factor never increases an idea’s academic-quality score.
Every gate passes and the independent audit is highly confident.
Uncertainty produces specific questions that can strengthen the idea.
Reserved for integrity failures, spam, harmful claims or no plausible research form.
View the full academic gate 8 checks · OECD classification · provenance scale
Open rather than predetermined, answerable through systematic inquiry, and expressed without changing the contributor’s intent.
Identifies something unknown, under-tested, disputed or worth replicating without inventing a literature claim.
Explains a plausible academic, practical, policy or social contribution without promising an outcome.
Names a population, geography, system, period or unit of analysis that could be bounded for university research.
Allows at least one plausible method, dataset, source base, experiment, case or analytical route.
Maps to an OECD Field of Research and Development and at least one credible university study pathway.
Is neutral enough to investigate and is not spam, promotion, discriminatory framing, a personal accusation or advocacy with a predetermined conclusion.
For paper-derived ideas, includes an APA 7 reference, DOI link when one can be verified, exact source location and an explicit-versus-inferred extraction label.
Provenance is separate from qualityA strong contributor idea can score highly at P1; a DOI-resolved paper direction can be P4 or P5 without receiving extra academic-quality points.
Global academic placementOECD Fields of Research and Development provide the stable top layer; flexible topic tags sit underneath.
Have a question you cannot pursue?