Publication bias: Research with positive results/outcomes are more likely to get published than those with negative results/outcomes. Why? Published a few years ago in PLoS ONE, Daniele Fanelli states that Papers are less likely to be published and to be cited if they report negative results (Fanelli, 2010). Because scientists are involuntarily finding themselves engaged in competition for positions and funding, many are choosing not to proceed with their non-significant findings (those that support the null hypothesis) that yield less scientific interest and fewer citations. Consequently, the amount of non-significant data reported is progressively declining (Fanelli, 2012). Although it could be argued that this is due to an increasing quality of science, it is more likely attributable to the selectiveness of ‘high impact’ journals that, in our opinion, might as well have a bold statement in the submission form: negative results are not accepted. However, there seems to be a gap between results that are positive and results that are high impact. Logically there is no connection, but it seems scientific culture assumes that they are analogous. Why aren’t negative results considered to be of the same value? Lars Avemarie, Matt Folsom, Diane Jacobs, Paul Ingraham, Jason Silvernail, Rebbecca Bishop, Carol Lynn Chevrier ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3917235/
Posted on: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 16:22:00 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015