Year: 2020
Type: editorial
Abstract: ublishing research with negative results-that is, null or inconclusive findings-is a critical but often overlooked task of biomedical journals.Without it, the scientific literature relies on highly selected pieces of evidence that viewed in isolation can distort a field.Publishing research with negative results provides a more comprehensive and fuller view of a scientific discipline.It also can mitigate wasted time and resources by other scientists who attempt to duplicate research efforts in vain.By filling in the background, it expedites processes for new discovery and can enhance "positive" research by informing the design of future studies.Yet despite its well-recognized and essential necessities for science, significant challenges exist for authors who seek to publish research with negative results.The label itself invokes an undesirable connotation, often dismissing a negative result as a failure or negligible contribution regardless of whether rigorous study design, execution, and analysis occurred.As a result, such work is frequently less cited, and some have even argued that publishing it can undermine early careers.1,2 This can make it unattractive for authors to even take the time to write up and submit results when the findings are null or inconclusive.We have become so accustomed to celebrating successes in science that we forget the crucial role of "failures" in advancing a field.Research with negative results (including inconclusive results) has come to be viewed so poorly that even when well-done, antiscience advocates may use it to undermine faith in the entire scientific process.3,4 The contribution of these data to the research field, however, is critical-its absence indicates publication bias and undermines the whole purpose of systematic review and metaanalyses.A few such concerns are playing out recently in the example of hydroxycholoroquine as a treatment for the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).5 Numerous randomized clinical trials with consistent negative findings have now been published given the topic's current importance.However, these trials are competing for attention with less well-designed observational studies with outlier and potentially overhyped results.These studies continue to raise lingering questions-some of which are legitimate-on whether the treatment works and may distract from other promising areas of investigation.Indeed, as researchers the world over address the COVID-19 pandemic, the importance of publishing research with negative results has become clearer as we chase a growing list of novel associations that may have little clinical relevance.Be it basic or clinical, the effort should be to develop and execute rigorous research projects and not just report results that are significant.To move forward, knowing what does not work is just
Language: English
Subfield: Information Systems and Management
Field: Decision Sciences
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: hybrid
OpenAlex ID: W3089747833