There should be a journal for negative results -- well-summarized papers on all the shit that you tried in your lab that just fell flat on its face.
I think the reproducibility crisis is caused in large part because researchers feel massive pressure to publish positive results, and are willing to cut corners and apply """creative""" analysis of their data to do so. The journal I'm proposing could be humorously called "Failure" or something and would exclusively be for negative results.
In "Failure", you essentially describe what you were trying to do, why it seemed like a good idea theoretically, the methods you attempted, and why it all fucken fell flat on its face.
For example, I spent years trying to develop a synthetic treatment for a medical condition that would be better than the current state of the art because reasons. NOTHING we tried was as good as the animal-derived products that are currently in use. I still follow that group and 10 years later the've made no big progress. Yet that lab's unsuccessful attempts are a treasure trove of information. If we could publish negative results with no stigma, then we could all avoid reinventing the wheel by not trying the same thing twice.
Also, I bet that during the writing or peer review process, researchers might realize that actually they're sitting on results that show a genuine hole in the currently accepted theory -- which would be awesome (and probably the best case). "Failure" could, in this way, become quite an important tome of knowledge.
Could also be used for math: list all the failed ideas you had to prove the twin prime conjecture or something. You know they're out there because if they weren't then the conjecture would be proved by now.
What does /sci/ think?
I think the reproducibility crisis is caused in large part because researchers feel massive pressure to publish positive results, and are willing to cut corners and apply """creative""" analysis of their data to do so. The journal I'm proposing could be humorously called "Failure" or something and would exclusively be for negative results.
In "Failure", you essentially describe what you were trying to do, why it seemed like a good idea theoretically, the methods you attempted, and why it all fucken fell flat on its face.
For example, I spent years trying to develop a synthetic treatment for a medical condition that would be better than the current state of the art because reasons. NOTHING we tried was as good as the animal-derived products that are currently in use. I still follow that group and 10 years later the've made no big progress. Yet that lab's unsuccessful attempts are a treasure trove of information. If we could publish negative results with no stigma, then we could all avoid reinventing the wheel by not trying the same thing twice.
Also, I bet that during the writing or peer review process, researchers might realize that actually they're sitting on results that show a genuine hole in the currently accepted theory -- which would be awesome (and probably the best case). "Failure" could, in this way, become quite an important tome of knowledge.
Could also be used for math: list all the failed ideas you had to prove the twin prime conjecture or something. You know they're out there because if they weren't then the conjecture would be proved by now.
What does /sci/ think?
