1887

Abstract

Scientists face challenges in publishing negative results, because most scientific journals are biassed in accepting positive and novel findings. Despite their importance, negative results often go unpublished, leading to duplication of efforts, biassed meta-analyses, and ethical concerns regarding animal and human studies. In this light, the initiative by to collect and publish negative results in the field of microbiology is a very important and valuable contribution towards unbiassed science.

  • This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/acmi/10.1099/acmi.0.000792
2024-04-02
2024-04-30
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/acmi/6/4/acmi000792.html?itemId=/content/journal/acmi/10.1099/acmi.0.000792&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Fanelli D. Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries. Scientometrics 2012; 90:891–904 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Van Noorden R. How big is science’s fake-paper problem?. Nature 2023; 623:466–467 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Mlinarić A, Horvat M, Šupak Smolčić V. Dealing with the positive publication bias: Why you should really publish your negative results. Biochem Med 2017; 27:030201 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/acmi/10.1099/acmi.0.000792
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error