This is a good question, and it's certainly something that could be clearer on the website. The closest thing to what you're asking for is here but the page is slightly dated and is due to be refreshed soon. Some of the focus areas are also at a very high level of abstraction (e.g. global health and development) which should not be read as meaning we don't want suggestions for opportunities within those focus areas.

On the page for the new cause area prompt it specifies deliberately that we are open to suggestions for new problems to work on, and new ways to address problems we are already working on. So to pick an example, Open Philanthropy already funds work to fight malaria through its funding of GiveWell recommended charities that do service delivery work (e.g. AMF, Malaria Consortium) and through supporting research into gene drives (e.g. Target Malaria). But there are potentially other ways to fight malaria that we haven't funded historically (e.g. vaccine development). 

I would suggest authors do a quick check through our grant database before digging deep into a particular cause, and if there is a specific problem that you are considering writing about and are concerned might be too similar to what we already do, you're welcome to email [email protected]

Yes - this fits within our GHW portfolio. From the FAQ page:

Can I write about non-human animals?

Yes. Open Philanthropy is a major funder of work to improve farm animal welfare. If you want to write about a potential new cause area where the primary beneficiaries are non-human animals, please use the open prompt.

Yes, a broader proposal on scientific reproducibility as a potential cause area would be appropriate for this. Your proposed project could be an example grantee, but it would be great idea to explore other ways that a funder could help address the problem as well (even if you conclude that something like I4R is the most cost-effective opportunity)

All of those things are ok. Open Phil staff shouldn't be listed as co-authors since they are not eligible for the prizes. A brief acknowledgement section is welcome if you've had substantial input from others who are not co-authors. 

If you are submitting an unpublished piece of writing which you've already produced, please make sure it is answering a question that we've put forward and is geared towards the perspective of a funder (see our guidance page for more detail)

The flower was licensed from this site.

The designer saw and appreciated this comment, but asked not to be named on the Forum.

Meta comment ^[1]- Ok, well. I downvoted my own comment above, because it rose to the top, above a comment that I think is more substantive. 

I don't have much more upvoting/downvoting power, so please stop upvoting my comment, or at least upvote the aaronb50 comment^[2].

1. ^{^}

   Yes ,this comment you are reading is insipid, but it's still better than wobbly arguing over neartermism/longtermism, instead of doing the thing.

2. ^{^}

   Probably upvotes should be by merit, not by relative position, so the ideas in this comment might be wrong in general. 

Sorry to hear! I think you might have clicked it during the split-second I was updating that page. Please could you give it another try and send [email protected] a screenshot of whatever error you're getting if it doesn't work

Thanks for spotting - this should now be fixed

Suggestions of scientific research and lobbying / advocacy, or other activities where cost-effectiveness are hard to measure are all potentially valid suggestions and would be eligible for prizes (and the $200 participation awards). For each of these I'd say that costs are relatively estimable based on what individual research projects costs, current research spending in an area, the cost of comparable advocacy campaigns etc. I agree that the chances of success are more difficult, but they can be estimated to at least some extent based on comparable base rates. There will, of course, be substantial uncertainty associated with any estimates of cost-effectiveness that relies on research or advocacy, but as long as your reasoning is transparent that's ok. You can read more about this on our webpage on making a grant and on the guidance page for the Cause Exploration Prizes. 

Anti-aging research could be an interesting submission.

Investments in for-profit companies are eligible as suggestions - Open Philanthropy is a flexible funder. When thinking about the costs of such an investment program, you will want to reduce the costs by any returns that the investment generates (perhaps with a discount to reflect the opportunity cost of investing it elsewhere).

From their FAQs:

Can I submit multiple entries?

Yes. You can submit up to 3 entries as an author or co-author.