Be positive about negatives–recommendations for the publication of negative (or null) results
Open accessAbstract
Both positive and negative (null or neutral) results are essential for the progress of science and its self-correcting nature. However, there is general reluctance to publish negative results, and this may be due a range of factors (e.g., the widely held perception that negative results are more difficult to publish, the preference to publish positive findings that are more likely to generate citations and funding for additional research). It is particularly challenging to disclose negative results that are not consistent with previously published positive data, especially if the initial publication appeared in a high impact journal. Ideally, there should be both incentives and support to reduce the costs associated with investing efforts into preparing publications with negative results. We describe here a set of criteria that can help scientists, reviewers and editors to publish technically sound, scientifically high-impact negative (or null) results originating from rigorously designed and executed studies. Proposed criteria emphasize the importance of collaborative efforts and communication among scientists (also including the authors of original publications with positive results).
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
There is hesitation to publish negative results.
“There is hesitation to publish negative results [37], despite philosophical and practical support [38].”
From Reporting quality of abstracts of systematic reviews/meta-analyses: An appraisal of Arab Journal of Urology across 12 years: the PRISMA-Abstracts checklist (2023) · cites this paper as [37]
Cites
Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience
Button, K. S., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Mokrysz, C., Nosek, B. A., Flint, J., Robinson, E. S. J., & Munafò, M. R. (2013) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn3475 · Cited by 7,641 · see citing works
Raise standards for preclinical cancer research
Begley, C. G., & Ellis, L. M. (2012) · Nature · doi:10.1038/483531a · Cited by 2,979 · see citing works
Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets?
Prinz, F., Schlange, T., & Asadullah, K. (2011) · Nature Reviews Drug Discovery · doi:10.1038/nrd3439-c1 · Cited by 1,888 · see citing works
ApoE-Directed Therapeutics Rapidly Clear β-Amyloid and Reverse Deficits in AD Mouse Models
Cramer, P. E., Cirrito, J. R., Wesson, D. W., Lee, C. Y. D., Karlo, J. C., Zinn, A. E., Casali, B. T., Restivo, J. L., Goebel, W. D., James, M. J., et al. (2012) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1217697 · Cited by 1,050 · see citing works
Publication bias in reports of animal stroke studies leads to major overstatement of efficacy
Sena, E. S., van der Worp, H. B., Bath, P. M. W., Howells, D. W., & Macleod, M. R. (2010) · PLoS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000344 · Cited by 600 · see citing works
Evaluation of excess significance bias in animal studies of neurological diseases
Tsilidis, K. K., Panagiotou, O. A., Sena, E. S., Aretouli, E., Evangelou, E., Howells, D. W., Salman, R. A.-S., Macleod, M. R., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2013) · PLoS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001609 · Cited by 295 · see citing works
Fitz, N. F., Cronican, A. A., Lefterov, I., & Koldamova, R. (2013) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1235809 · Cited by 151 · see citing works
Ramirez, F. D., Motazedian, P., Jung, R. G., Di Santo, P., MacDonald, Z. D., Moreland, R., Simard, T., Clancy, A. A., Russo, J. J., Welch, V. A., et al. (2017) · Circulation Research · doi:10.1161/circresaha.117.310628 · Cited by 138 · see citing works
Veeraraghavalu, K., Zhang, C., Miller, S., Hefendehl, J. K., Rajapaksha, T. W., Ulrich, J., Jucker, M., Holtzman, D. M., Tanzi, R. E., Vassar, R., et al. (2013) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1235505 · Cited by 133 · see citing works
Tesseur, I., Lo, A. C., Roberfroid, A., Dietvorst, S., Van Broeck, B., Borgers, M., Gijsen, H., Moechars, D., Mercken, M., Kemp, J., et al. (2013) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1233937 · Cited by 128 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Schagerl, M., Siedler, R., Konopáčová, E., & Ali, S. S. (2022) · Cells · doi:10.3390/cells11152455 · Cited by 82 · see citing works
El Ansari, W., AlRumaihi, K., El-Ansari, K., Arafa, M., Elbardisi, H., Majzoub, A., Shamsodini, A., & Al Ansari, A. (2023) · Arab Journal of Urology · doi:10.1080/2090598x.2022.2113127 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
“There is hesitation to publish negative results [37], despite philosophical”
Background
- Authors
- Bespalov, A., Steckler, T., & Skolnick, P.
- Affiliations
- Janssen (Belgium) (BE)
- Corresponding author
- Bespalov, Anton
- Venue
- European Neuropsychopharmacology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-12
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1312-1320
- ISSN
- 0924-977X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2985042766
- Cited by
- 59
- References
- 10
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4
- FWCI
- 22.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- European Neuropsychopharmacology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Innovative Medicines Initiative (777364)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Publishing and Scholarly Communication
- Keywords
- negative results, publication bias, publication criteria, scientific rigor, peer review, journal editorial policy, research incentives, science communication
- MeSH terms
- Negative Results, Humans, Periodicals as Topic, Peer Review, Research
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
