Anything proposed here (or anywhere) should be high in value and low in added work if we expect it to have any lasting appeal or impact (Skinner, 1972; Deci 1971; Legris, Ingham, & Collerette, 2003; Thaler & Sunstein, 2008).
Ideally, changes are things individuals want to do because they make the job easier.
Attempting to impose new rules, or make it harder for individuals to cheat, in the long run, only makes for better cheaters (e.g., prohibition, war on drugs; Nadelmann, 1989).
At all times, proposed changes should be using the carrot (approach motivations) to motivate individuals instead of the whip (avoidance motivations; Higgins, 1997). Trying to catch cheaters is simply unproductive, rather than waste our efforts in this way, let us try to create a system that solves the problem (Skinner, 1976; Nadelmann, 1989).
Even when researchers make suggestions of the type that use the carrot, without coordination, the effort to buy in is higher than the payoff, which limits implementation (Thaler, & Sunstein, 2008; Skinner 1976). There are over 100 piecemeal tools scientists can use to be more open (Hartgerink, 2014; Nosek, & Bar-Anan, 2012; Priem, Taraborelli, Groth, & Neylon, 2010) unfortunately, these divide the market and may paradoxically hinder implementation.
Essentially, we should be using carrots to lead people to the correct action, instead of trying to force them to do something they may otherwise be uninterested in.