Consequences of prejudice against the null hypothesis.

In the citing paper

“The bias against negative results appears to be a consequence of both editors and reviewers finding them less compelling for publication and from authors themselves not trying to publish them 8-12”

In the citing paper

“Positive results -- finding that a treatment is effective or that there is a relationship between two variables -- are more likely to be published than negative results 6-12 .”

In the citing paper

“Theoretical analyses point to a system of incentives that prioritizes innovation over verification, leading to infrequent efforts to replicate findings and to behaviors that could reduce the replicability of published findings such as selective reporting, presenting exploratory findings as confirmatory tests, and failures of documentation, transparency, and sharing”

In the citing paper

“Research that produces novel results, statistically significant results (that is, typically p < 0.05) and seemingly 'clean' results is more likely to be published 2,3 .”

In the citing paper

“An important qualification about this result is the possibility that the original studies have inflated effect sizes due to publication, selection, reporting, or other biases ( 9, 12­23 ).”

In the citing paper

“Potentially problematic practices include selective reporting, selective analysis, and insufficient specification of the conditions necessary or sufficient to obtain the results ( 12­23 ).”

In the citing paper

“There is good evidence that low power of research designs combined with publication bias favoring positive results over negative results produces a literature with upwardly biased effect sizes ( 14, 16, 30, 31 ).”

In the citing paper

“Concerns about reproducibility are widespread across disciplines ( 9­21 ).”