Failing to Replicate: How Often Do PLOS Authors Publish Negative Results?

In summary: This is a common complaint from professors teaching seminar classes in neuroscience (where we go through 4 journal articles a week).This is a common complaint from professors teaching seminar classes in neuroscience (where we go through 4 journal articles a week).
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
An excellent example of science working the way it is supposed to (and often doesn't)
 
  • #3
Historically there have been some very important negative results. The failure of experiments like the Michelson-Morley to measure the luminiferous aether is what lead Einstein, in part, to special relativity. The current failure of the LHC to make any experimental observation that is in conflict with the Standard Model and the failure of Dark Matter detectors to find a single confirmed particle may in the future be important negative results as well.
 
  • #4
dipole said:
Historically there have been some very important negative results. The failure of experiments like the Michelson-Morley to measure the luminiferous aether is what lead Einstein, in part, to special relativity.

As a matter of interesting historical significance, I think Einstein was quoted as saying that he was unaware of the Michelson-Morley results when he was developing SR. At least according to Ohanian:https://www.amazon.com/dp/0393337685/?tag=pfamazon01-20

I think he also asserted that he was unaware of Poincare's relevant work on SR that was going on currently with his. He developed SR largely based on Maxwell's and Lorentz's work. I can see him perhaps being ignorant of Poincare's publications, but not to know about MM that occurred about 20 years earlier? Hard to believe he didn't come across that in his research. What a great feather in your hat reference to have when publishing your model. These are the kind you don't want to miss.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #6
dipole said:
Historically there have been some very important negative results. The failure of experiments like the Michelson-Morley to measure the luminiferous aether is what lead Einstein, in part, to special relativity. The current failure of the LHC to make any experimental observation that is in conflict with the Standard Model and the failure of Dark Matter detectors to find a single confirmed particle may in the future be important negative results as well.
Negative results are frequently published in physics, other sciences often have a worse ratio - up to the point where repetitions do not get funded at all because "this has been studied already"... or negative results are simply not published at all.
 
  • #7
mfb said:
Negative results are frequently published in physics, other sciences often have a worse ratio - up to the point where repetitions do not get funded at all because "this has been studied already"... or negative results are simply not published at all.

This is a common complaint from professors teaching seminar classes in neuroscience (where we go through 4 journal articles a week).
 
  • #8
The issue of the publication of negative results in peer-reviewed journals is a highly contentious one. I am impressed by PLOS ONE accepting this publication, but I am even more impressed that they did so as a full paper, rather than as "correspondence to the editor" or even a mere footnote of retraction (as many other journals tend to do, if they even bother to consider the follow-up paper). Kudos for excellent intellectual honesty all around - to the authors, the reviewers and the editorial board.

I am not really familiar with what goes on in physical sciences journals, but I am active in publishing and reviewing in the medical literature. Because of the long-recognition of issues with getting negative results to see the light of day in high impact-factor journals (or pretty much any "mainstream" journal, really), techniques like displaying the funnel plot (a visual representation of the likelihood of publication bias) have become de rigueur when publishing meta-analyses and systematic reviews. And, to address the perceived gap in the "mainstream" literature, open access, online-only journals like the Journal of Negative Results in Biological Medicine have sprung up. Their website: http://www.jnrbm.com/
 
  • #9
Yep, PLOS One is itself an open acces project of PLOS.
 

1. What is the purpose of the study?

The purpose of the study is to determine how often authors publishing in PLOS journals report negative or "failed" results in their research.

2. How was the data collected for this study?

The data was collected by analyzing a random sample of articles published in PLOS journals between 2010 and 2017. The articles were screened for keywords and phrases related to negative or "failed" results, and then further analyzed to determine how these results were reported.

3. What were the main findings of the study?

The study found that only 10% of articles in PLOS journals reported negative or "failed" results, and that these results were often presented in a way that downplayed their significance. In addition, the study found that a majority of authors did not acknowledge or discuss the limitations or potential biases in their research.

4. Why is it important to publish negative or "failed" results?

Publishing negative or "failed" results is important because it allows for a more complete understanding of the scientific process. Often, negative results can provide valuable insights and prevent other researchers from repeating the same mistakes. In addition, publishing negative results promotes transparency and helps to avoid publication bias.

5. What are the implications of this study for the scientific community?

The study highlights the need for greater transparency and reporting of negative or "failed" results in scientific research. It also calls for a shift in the culture of scientific publishing, where negative results are seen as equally valuable as positive results. The implications of this study are important for promoting more accurate and reliable scientific findings.

Similar threads

A Shinichi Mochizuki's ABC Conjecture and Replication Crisis in Maths
    • General Math
Replies
33
Views
5K
Medical Targeting microbial metabolites to treat autism
    • Biology and Medical
Replies
1
Views
835
Current and Future AI Threats to Humanity and the Human Response
    • Computing and Technology
Replies
10
Views
2K
Accepted physics paper. Woo hoo.
    • General Discussion
Replies
21
Views
5K
B Unlearning the Block Universe: How Relativity Challenges Our Perception of Time
    • Special and General Relativity
3
Replies
90
Views
5K
I What false hints of new physics were most notable?
    • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
30
Views
7K
Is the future of quantum mechanics retrocausal?
    • Quantum Physics
Replies
17
Views
4K
Cancer drugs and Alzheimer's, Oh my
    • Biology and Medical
Replies
4
Views
5K
LHC about to restart - some frequently asked questions
    • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
2
Replies
69
Views
12K
I Bayes again - how to interpret in vitro genotoxicity data
    • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
8
Views
1K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top