Ricardo:

Revise your methodology if you have not done so to include how you would handle negative results and then follow that procedure in writing up the results. See the link attached for how to do the latter.

many thanks,

Debra

https://www.researchgate.net/search.Search.html?type=publication&query=Reporting%20negative%20results%20in%20an%20experiment&tabViewId=570bf50c5b4952c7a5465ce7&previous=researcher

Great Question.

We cannot avoid the possibilities of getting negative results during an experiment/simulation. That is why we call it as " research". If the negative results are reproducing on a strong scientific platform/logic, I would recommend to publish that negative results.

Yes indeed, negative results often help clarifying problems.

Dear @Ricardo, there are Journals that publish negative research results. It is good to share such results. We did have last years a few threads that treat this subject. Negative results help other researchers in the same field of research problem.

I am free to attach just @Mahmoud's thread. There are many answers and resources.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_is_there_negativity_towards_publishing_negative_results

The negative result of the experiment is entered in the test cycle. If each experiment was successful, so the prescribed result, Why sit we had to carry out an experiment?

Yes, you can expect how they will react, eg. Plant or the patient's body or a single cell, the answer to stimuli, a new drug or preparation. But you can not expect that every test will be successful. It also happens that the assumptions and posed the thesis experiment mogąsugerować success. But let's be realistic, there are numerous examples of medical research that often and it is clear that the expected and anticipated positive effects, unfortunately, did not take place. Thus, the negative result of the experiment is also experience and is widely communicated back.

And on this basis, it forms the basis for further research and the creation of new assumptions. The negative result of the experiment should not be errors due to poor methodological assumptions, but it becomes a step further exploration and subsequent studies.

I think results are results (positive or negative) if your hypothesis and methodology are correct. Thus, the "negative" results are treated as the positive results. The negative  results will surely help us to continue to plan further research.

When I was doing PhD, my supervisor asked me to stick to research questions, rather than hypotheses, since there was not a lot of research in my topic.  I reported all positive and NEGATIVE RESULTS.  Recently in my paper with Prof Enzo Ierardi, there was no significant differences in total motivation between male and female students, 19 years old; and we stated that.  

Scientists must be willing to publish ALL RESULTS.  JUST SEE the sad consequences when certain important negative results were QUIETLY COVERED UP. Examples I can think of right now are the benefits of coconut oil (and fats) that has been demonized.  How responsible and open to reason and negative results, we should be as SCIENTISTS! I have close friends who never improved in health, and would not listen that palm oil and coconut oil are better for frying than corn oil.

(There is no need to apologize about negative results if our research has been rigorous.  I attach a related link.  Thanks.)

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/07/the-sugar-conspiracy-robert-lustig-john-yudkin?CMP=share_btn_fb

Negative results may be Good lessons learnt towards Positive results of an experiment. 

I agree with you Aung

That's a very intelligent question . We as a researcher , very often remain more concerned about the negative results than the conventional results. I feel , negative results or the  positive results , they have their own significance during the course of experimentation . In some cases, such negative results have much greater impact than the positive results . You surely need a courage and a strong  conviction to report negative results. At the end , one should not make any distinction between negative and positive results, both should be treated with the same conviction of scientific reporting .

I think it should be. We, the scientific community, should present the negative results because it is the one part.

Dear Colleagues,

Good Day,

"Why one science journal wants to publish negative studies

If science were a TV show, it would be a lot more like Modern Family than Breaking Bad: the promising and positive results from studies are usually on display, not the dark, ambiguous underbelly of negative and inconclusive research findings.

This is because research suffers from what's known as "publication bias": not all studies that are conducted actually get published in journals, and the ones that do tend to have positive (i.e. statistically significant) and dramatic conclusions. This is a big problem because it means we have a biased picture of what's going on in science, and many researchers waste their time and funding repeating work that's already been done.

The issue is so severe right now that some have wondered whether negative results are disappearing entirely from some countries and fields of science.

Now, one journal is trying to correct publication bias: PLoS One this week launched its "Missing Pieces" collection of negative, null, and inconclusive studies — in other words, a celebration of the seamier side of botched and boring experiments that usually never sees the light of day.

Articles in the collection include one that failed to find that women's support groups had a significant impact on postpartum disorder in Bangladeshi mothers (despite promising findings in similar research in India) and a study that could not replicate four previous experiments on the "depletion model" of self control, an increasingly popular idea that posits that self control is a limited resource that runs out in people.

"The publication of negative results, such as the works featured in the collection, is essential to research progress," the journal writes. This new home for science's "missing pieces" can "prevent duplication of research effort and potentially expedites the process of finding positive results."

The new initiative isn't happening in isolation, however. It's part of a wider push to improve how science is done. Meta-researchers have long documented the problem of publication bias, and there have been other measures to address it. As a rule, PLoS ONE already makes a point of accepting negative studies for publication, and the Journal of Negative Results in Biomedicine is trying to fight research bias, one blundered or dull bit of research at a time."....

This is very interesting article related to the thread, please, see the link for more detail....

http://www.vox.com/2015/2/27/8119957/publication-bias

An Elsevier publisher argues that an experiment shouldn't have to show positive results to earn its place in the published literature.

https://www.elsevier.com/authors-update/story/innovation-in-publishing/why-science-needs-to-publish-negative-results

Ricardo

Good question - it is like success and failure in life - the honest person probably learns more through his or her failures than through success. In failure we have to go deep inside to find the meaning, whereas with success, we are tempted to float on the surface or get carried away without looking for the deeper meaning. When success  follows failure that has been truly investigated, the success then become the success of many people. Its relevance is probably also more important.

Although this does not answer your question, it supports the importance of negative results and their publication as we can all learn through them.  

Of course you should write a publiction. But give clear results and reasons. It saves time for the collegues, clears problems and is honest.

My personal view, because I got my PHD for the proof of an error of colleques by gaining a "negative" result from a very clear defined experiment and argumentation.

I agree with you Abboud

I always believe , your results , negative or positive , if substantiated nicely with scientific arguments  , it is more of an asset to both researcher as well as publisher. And , no one can deny that fact . We , infact , don't need to regulate our  negative results , and why so?

There is nothing wrong in publishing a negative finding...it clarifies many things, prevents others working on an issue which doesn't need an attention...thereby saves money! It helps to understand two sides of the coin. 

Hypothetically, someone publish a positive result. Another group could work on the similar problem, with similar experimental setup and publish a negative result. It is a possibility. 

I have seen many papers with negative results.  I found many of them are interesting. Some of them had Type II errors (false negative) in their protocols. 

Finally, I have also seen, over the years, sample size was not calculated properly. This ultimately gives a negative result or shows a trend, but not statistically significant enough to call it as a significant finding.

Excellent comment.

Why science needs to publish negative results

An Elsevier publisher argues that an experiment shouldn't have to show positive results to earn its place in the published literature

By Emma Granqvist

Emma Granqvist, a journal Publisher for Elsevier’s plant sciences, is behind the recent launch of the open access journal New Negatives in Plant Science, a platform for negative, unexpected or controversial results in the field. The journal is viewed as a pilot and may lead to New Negatives in… titles for other research disciplines.

In this article, Granqvist explains why she believes scientists should move away from positive bias to ensure all research results are shared through peer review.

 Many experimental results never see the light of publication day. For a large number of these, it comes down to the data being “negative”, i.e. the expected and/or wanted effect was not observed. A straightforward example might be the testing of a soil additive that is believed to help a plant grow. If the experiment outcome shows no difference between the standard soil and the soil with the additive, then the result will end up buried in the laboratory’s archive.

But is this really the best approach to scientific results?

Ignoring the vast information source that is negative results is troublesome in several ways. Firstly, it skews the scientific literature by only including chosen pieces of information. Secondly, it causes a huge waste of time and resources, as other scientists considering the same questions may perform the same experiments.

Furthermore, given that positive results are published, whereas negative data will struggle, it is extremely difficult to correct the scientific record for false positives; controversial studies that conflict with or cannot reproduce previously published studies are seldom given space in peer-reviewed journals.

Sometimes the argument is given that negative data “cannot be trusted”. But as was pointed out in the 2013 article “Trouble at the Lab” in The Economist, negative data are statistically more trustworthy than positive data.

Given that restrictions in publication space is becoming outdated in today’s world of digital information, it would be more efficient and un-biased if all results were made available to the interested scientific community. For the funding bodies this holds an additional benefit: a grant funding research that resulted in negative data would then still result in publications and shared information.

For more plz read at following link.

Regards

https://www.elsevier.com/authors-update/story/innovation-in-publishing/why-science-needs-to-publish-negative-results

Dear @Ali, our friend @Subhash has already given this reference by Elsevier 5 days ago.

buenas, coincido con lo planteado por Subhash en el sentido de darle seguimiento a los escritos de la referencia de Elsevier. ademas, esto es peligroso debido a que tratar de manipular los resultados resultaría un sesgo en los resultados.

debemos procurar ser imparciales en los resultados de la comprobacion de una hipotesis.

Dear Ricardo De la Peña 

pls check the link.

http://dmm.biologists.org/content/7/2/171

Dear Ricardo De la Peña 

pls check the link.

http://dmm.biologists.org/content/7/2/171

Dear Ricardo De la Peña 

pls check the link.

http://dmm.biologists.org/content/7/2/171

Dear Ricardo De la Peña 

pls check the link.

http://dmm.biologists.org/content/7/2/171

Preprints allow researchers to share null, negative and inconclusive findings, including results they may not seek to include in the eventual journal submission. This allows researchers to gain credit for these contributions, which are often not currently published...

https://asapbio.org/preprints-in-progress