Negative findings: tackling the negativity

‘Science is often romanticised as a flawless system of knowledge building, where scientists work together to systematically find answers. In reality, this is not always the case. Dissemination of results are straightforward when the findings are positive, but what happens when you obtain results that support the null hypothesis, or do not fit with the current scientific thinking?’

In a recent Disease Models & Mechanisms Editorial, Natalie Matosin and colleagues from the University of Wollongong address attitudes towards negative results in the research world. Drawing on their own experiences in schizophrenia research, and well-known examples in the literature, the authors argue that findings that support the null hypothesis can be of value yet often meet with scepticism. Negative results can also prove difficult to publish. At the crux of the negativity towards negative results is the perception that such findings are ‘low impact’, influencing authors and journals to make their dissemination a lower priority than ‘high impact’ positive results. Natalie and co-authors discuss the importance of tackling this misperception to remove the bias towards publication of positive findings. In support of this, Disease Models & Mechanisms now welcomes the submission of papers reporting negative or null results that impact our understanding of disease mechanisms, models and/or therapeutics. Details about journal scope and editorial policies are given at: http://dmm.biologists.org/

The Matosin et al. Editorial ‘Negativity towards negative results: a discussion of the disconnect between scientific worth and scientific culture‘ is freely available here: http://dmm.biologists.org/content/7/2/171

(3 votes)

Loading...