Quick answer: Before publishing research findings, businesses and research partners should establish what the proposed disclosure reveals, whether it contains commercially sensitive information and whether publication could affect intellectual property protection. Research findings, technical methods and confidential know-how may require different treatment. The aim is to preserve the integrity of the research while making an informed decision about what can be shared.
A Research Result Can Be Ready to Publish Before the Business Is Ready
A materials company commissions a university research team to investigate a new protective coating.
The researchers develop an experimental method, compare alternative formulations and identify an approach that performs better under the conditions tested.
The findings are ready for a conference presentation.
The researchers prepare slides explaining the results, including photographs, material characteristics and the processing conditions associated with the preferred formulation.
The business welcomes the opportunity to demonstrate technical progress.
However, the proposed presentation raises a question that was not central to the experimental programme:
How much of the underlying method should become publicly available?
The company may want to communicate the performance improvement without disclosing the precise formulation or processing knowledge that could be commercially valuable.
The researchers may also have legitimate academic reasons to publish their findings.
Both objectives can be reasonable, but they need to be considered before information is released.
IP Australia advises businesses to keep potentially patentable inventions confidential until they have filed an appropriate patent application or decided on another protection strategy. Public disclosure can affect patent options, and the consequences may differ between jurisdictions. Australia has a 12-month grace period for certain public disclosures, but not all countries offer equivalent protection. Businesses should not rely on that period as a substitute for obtaining appropriate patent advice. IP Australia — What to Consider Before Applying for a Patent
The issue is not whether the research deserves to be published.
It is whether the business and its research partners understand what the proposed publication will reveal and have addressed any implications before disclosure.
Review What the Proposed Publication Actually Reveals
A presentation describing improved material performance may communicate a useful research finding without revealing every detail needed to reproduce the formulation.
However, removing precise numerical values does not necessarily protect commercially sensitive know-how.
Photographs, equipment configurations, experimental sequences and descriptions of processing conditions may collectively reveal information that was not intended for public release.
The review should therefore consider the complete proposed disclosure, including slides, figures, supplementary material and demonstrations, rather than examining individual details in isolation.
Three questions are particularly useful.
What information is already public?
Published literature, existing product specifications and previously disclosed methods may not carry the same confidentiality concerns as information developed specifically through the project.
What could the disclosure reveal about the technical method?
A presentation may reveal more than its authors intend. A combination of experimental conditions, material characteristics and observed results may allow an informed reader to infer aspects of a commercially valuable process.
Could disclosure affect future protection or use?
If the findings may support a patent application or rely on information intended to remain a trade secret, the proposed disclosure should be reviewed before it becomes public.
Confidentiality arrangements can help protect information shared with external research partners. IP Australia recommends using appropriate non-disclosure agreements when sharing confidential ideas, inventions, processes and other sensitive business information. However, an NDA should form part of a broader agreement about publication and information use rather than being assumed to resolve every issue. IP Australia — Non-disclosure Agreements
Agree on Publication Review Before the Results Are Ready
Publication arrangements are easier to manage when they are established before the research begins.
For collaborative research, the agreement should identify who can review proposed publications, how confidential information will be identified and what process applies if a disclosure may affect intellectual property protection.
Where appropriate, the parties may also need a defined period to assess whether a patent application should be filed before publication.
The exact arrangements depend on the collaboration, the applicable contract and any relevant funding or institutional requirements.
A publication review should not be used to suppress inconvenient results or change the scientific conclusions to suit commercial preferences.
Its purpose is to distinguish the validity of the research from the question of what information may appropriately be disclosed, and when.
Check Whether Funding Conditions Affect Publication
Some research programmes have specific requirements governing access to funded research outputs.
For example, the Australian Research Council's Open Access Policy applies to research outputs arising from ARC-funded research. Version 2026.1 applies to ARC grant schemes that opened for applications on or after 1 July 2026. Under that version, covered journal articles and conference papers must be made openly accessible immediately upon publication, while specified books, book chapters and research reports have different timeframes.
The policy does not apply to every type of research output. In particular, non-peer-reviewed outputs and research datasets are outside the scope of the 2026 policy. A conference presentation or slide deck should therefore not automatically be treated as equivalent to a covered peer-reviewed conference paper. The applicable grant guidelines and institutional requirements should be checked for the specific project. Australian Research Council — Open Access Policy
For a business collaborating with a university, the practical implication is straightforward: publication and confidentiality expectations should be discussed early, taking account of any applicable funding obligations rather than assuming that either commercial confidentiality or academic publication will automatically take priority.
Preserve the Research Evidence Without Publishing All of It
A business does not need to make every experimental record public to maintain a defensible research process.
Raw measurements, laboratory observations, unsuccessful experiments and evaluations may need to remain available for internal review or authorised assessment, even when the public presentation contains only a summary of the findings.
The underlying research conclusions should remain traceable.
For example, if a presentation states that a revised formulation performed better under defined experimental conditions, the supporting records should explain how that comparison was conducted and how the conclusion followed from the observations.
Confidentiality should not become a reason to leave the technical investigation inadequately documented.
Equally, maintaining complete research records does not necessarily require unrestricted public access to commercially sensitive methods.
For projects that may involve the Australian R&D Tax Incentive (R&DTI), current government guidance states that records should be created at the time the activity is conducted. Records should show relevant background research and what was done, how the work was performed, when it occurred and who carried it out. Experimental plans, trial records and test reports showing results and evaluation are examples of records that may demonstrate the systematic progression of work. Australian Government — Record Keeping for the R&D Tax Incentive
These record-keeping requirements concern the evidence needed to support the company's assessment of its activities. They do not, by themselves, require all research records to be published.
Keep the Publication Decision Separate From R&DTI Eligibility
A research result may be publishable, commercially valuable or potentially patentable without necessarily involving an eligible core R&D activity.
Under the current R&DTI rules, a core R&D activity must be conducted for the purpose of generating new knowledge and involve an outcome that cannot be known or determined in advance on the basis of current knowledge, information or experience. The outcome must be determined through a systematic progression of work based on principles of established science, proceeding from hypothesis to experiment, observation and evaluation and leading to logical conclusions. Australian Government — Conducting Core R&D Activities
Patentability, publication and commercial confidentiality do not independently establish R&DTI eligibility.
Companies must assess their actual activities and circumstances against the applicable requirements.
For founders, CTOs and CFOs, these are related but separate decisions.
Research governance should preserve the integrity of the investigation and the evidence supporting its conclusions.
Publication planning should establish what can be disclosed and when.
Intellectual property advice should address whether protection is appropriate and how disclosure could affect the available options.
One decision should not be used as a substitute for the others.
Conclusion
A research result can be technically ready for publication before the business has resolved every question about disclosure.
Before releasing the findings, the business and its research partners should understand what the proposed publication reveals, whether it contains confidential know-how, whether intellectual property protection may be affected and whether funding or contractual obligations apply.
The objective is not to prevent research from being shared.
It is to make publication a deliberate decision that respects the scientific findings while protecting legitimate commercial interests.
Sources & Further Reading
IP Australia — What to Consider Before Applying for a Patent
IP Australia — Non-disclosure Agreements
Australian Research Council — Open Access Policy
Australian Government — Record Keeping for the R&D Tax Incentive
Australian Government — Conducting Core R&D Activities
Talk to Ignition Research if your business is preparing to publish findings from a collaborative materials, software or engineering investigation and needs to clarify the technical information that can be shared and the research records that should be retained. As a Registered Research Service Provider, Ignition Research assists businesses with research question definition, experimental design, technical investigations and contemporaneous supporting records within its registered research fields.
RSP registration confirms that the provider has met the relevant registration requirements for its registered research fields. It does not constitute government endorsement of a project or guarantee R&DTI eligibility.
We do not determine R&DTI eligibility or provide tax advice. The R&D Tax Incentive is a self-assessment program, and companies remain responsible for assessing their activities, expenditure and circumstances and obtaining appropriate tax advice.
This article provides general information only and is not tax, legal or financial advice.
Working on a project like this?
Tell us what you're building and the part you're not sure will work. A researcher from our Adelaide team (registered Research Service Provider RSP000047) reads every enquiry and replies within two business days. No documents needed.
