Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries

Abstract

Concerns that the growing competition for funding and citations might distort science are frequently discussed, but have not been verified directly. Of the hypothesized problems, perhaps the most worrying is a worsening of positive-outcome bias. A system that disfavours negative results not only distorts the scientific literature directly, but might also discourage high-risk projects and pressure scientists to fabricate and falsify their data. This study analysed over 4,600 papers published in all disciplines between 1990 and 2007, measuring the frequency of papers that, having declared to have ''tested'' a hypothesis, reported a positive support for it. The overall frequency of positive supports has grown by over 22% between 1990 and 2007, with significant differences between disciplines and countries. The increase was stronger in the social and some biomedical disciplines. The United States had published, over the years, significantly fewer positive results than Asian countries (and particularly Japan) but more than European countries (and in particular the United Kingdom). Methodological artefacts cannot explain away these patterns, which support the hypotheses that research is becoming less pioneering and/or that the objectivity with which results are produced and published is decreasing.

Can the behavioral sciences self-correct? A social epistemic study

“…In particular, psychology and psychiatry have the highest percentage of significant results (91.5%). And the rate of published nonsignificant results has also diminished in the last decades (Fanelli, 2012). …”

Reducing implicit racial preferences: I. A comparative investigation of 17 interventions.

“…This would mean that there are constraints for when such interventions will be effective that are not yet clear. Finally, because published studies are biased against null results (Fanelli, 2010(Fanelli, , 2012Sterling, 1959;Sterling, Rosenbaum, & Weinkam, 1995), it is possible that the current literature overestimates the effectiveness of some types of interventions. Whatever the explanation, the present results raise new questions about the conditions under which the ineffective interventions could be effective.…”

Communicating science in international English: scholarly journals, publication praxis, language domain loss and benefits

“…To raise their own output, researchers rather than discussing findings in one single paper, scatter results by slicing them like salami and by "atomizing" data in several articles published in different journals (Bornmann, 2011;Cianflone, 2012a;Fanelli, 2012;van Dalen & Klamer, 2005).…”