Do you think this is a result of author's own attitude or rather the result of publishers' policies? Are the researchers unsure whether their measuring instruments are working perfectly or are sensitive/accurate enough? On the other hand we often see the results which are hard to reproduce, if at all, by others researchers...
Well, we cannot be ever 100% sure that our results are perfect or guaranteed, but this comment applies equally well to achievements "in favor" or "against" the tested idea.
Perhaps it is the addition of several causes:
1. Obviously if the results are not good and they don't confirm an idea, an editor is in difficulties to justify its publication.
2. It is also very worthy to know how an idea has failed. I'm sure that many body would follow as a challenge, but it could be one ruine for the scientist who has had such idea. The success of others could show his/her capacity for working on the subject.
3. The waste of time or energy in a failed work is always a hope that something was learnt that only needs to be slightly changed.
4. To stop a reseach work in a failed result means a great knowledge (even higher that if he were successful) for a researcher that he is not able of solve it. This only can be done by a scientist with a good curriculum because a beginner would not take a chance of have of doing it again.
In any case I find very interesting the suggestion of having one review devoted to publish failed ideas or results. I am sure that it would be an editorial success if they could get people interested in doing it.
Please let me know if this reference is useful to you.
Journal of Negative Results in Biomedicine (JNRBM) will cease to be published by BioMed Central as of 1st September 2017. BioMed Central will continue to host an archive of all articles previously published in the journal and all articles published in JNRBM during its time with BioMed Central will remain fully searchable via the BioMed Central website.
The mission and purpose of JNRBM has always been to encourage the publication of null results, addressing bias in the literature. Since its inception, JNRBM has provided a platform for results which would otherwise have remained unpublished, and now many other journals have followed JNRBM’s lead in publishing articles reporting negative or null results. As such JNRBM has succeeded in its mission and there is no longer a need for a specific journal to host these null results. The journal will therefore be closing soon and JNRBM is no longer considering new submissions.
Site: https://jnrbm.biomedcentral.com/
Dennis
Dennis Mazur
Well, maybe the existence of a journal devoted only to negative results (or null - what's that?) doesn't make too much sense. You can't make money on negative result, can you? It may be suspected that some, or even all, indicators for this very journal, like Impact Factor and alike, appeared not satisfactory, evolving in undesirable direction. In my opinion, however, articles presenting negative results are valuable too. From purely scientific point of view (in opposition to business point of view) it is equally important not to invest the precious time into dead end investigations, not just into those with uncertain results, as we all usually do.
Question:
Why are the negative results published so rarely?
this is a very important issue that requires scientific research.
Dear Marek Wojciech Gutowski, Thank you very much for making very important inquiries on the Research Gate portal and inspiring important discussions on particularly important issues.
Negative results are published less frequently because negative results are often less practical in the area of building synthetic scientific theories, and the use of these results in specific practical applications.
Interesting question....I think we can learn a lot from negative results.
Very important question, there is wrong believe on most researchers that negative results mean fail or failed research or not acceptance to publishing !!!
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Psychology
- Attitude