Research awards provide recognition to outstanding researchers for excellent research (at least that is what they usually claim). But what does “excellent research” mean? Can we tell what the assessors and awarding bodies value from award descriptions? Do they value robust, transparent, and inclusive research? Do they incentivize adherence to core practices of Open Science? And who gets these awards? In this poster, I present the results of a collaborative project evaluating 222 Best Paper awards across disciplines. Notably, this work builds on an earlier project focused on two types of common awards for early career researchers in the fields of ecology and evolution. We found that journals and learned societies administering Best Paper awards publicly provide very little detail about their awards. Award descriptions almost never mention concepts that align with Open Science. Between 2001 and 2022, most individual winners were USA-affiliated, while researchers from the Global South and developing countries were uncommon. Sixty-one percent of individual winners were men. Overall, Best Paper awards miss the global calls for providing greater transparency and equitability in science. We can see them as an untapped opportunity for aligning incentives in the publication process and research recognition with values for greater openness and inclusivity. Including and highlighting Open Science practices in award criteria could raise awareness and act as a direct incentive for researchers to implement such practices in their research. For publishers, it is a chance to both signal and prove the trustworthiness of their publication assessment processes. For the broader public, it could showcase how community-driven action can drive the greater transparency and reliability of scholarly communication.