negative results in social science

Abstract

Do academic publication standards reflect or determine research results? The article proposes minimal criteria for distinguishing useful 'unpublishable' results from low-quality research, and argues that the virtues of negative results have been overlooked. We consider the fate these results have suffered thus far, review arguments for and against their publication and introduce a new initiative -a journal to disseminate negative results and advance debate on their recognition and use.

Customer Acquisition among Small and Informal Businesses in Urban India: Comparing Face‐to‐face and Mediated Channels

“…There was a small, significant main effect for the impact of mobile phone ownership on perceived familiarity of customers F(1,307) = 10.4, p<.01, two-tailed. However, this was in the opposite direction as was hypothesized-those with mobiles reported higher levels of familiarity with customer-thus the null hypothesis was not rejected, and the results of this test are inconclusive (Lehrera et al, 2007). As a whole, the model was a fairly weak predictor of familiarity, as the overall R 2 was a modest .118.…”

“…The only clear observable relationship was between landline use and total number of reported customers. However, in the spirit of productively reporting inconclusive findings (Lehrera et al, 2007) the analysis does merit some further discussion.…”

Medications development for the treatment of alcohol use disorder: insights into the predictive value of animal and human laboratory models

“…This strong bias towards positive publications makes it extremely difficult to draw conclusions between the predictive validity of animal data to clinical outcomes. Furthermore, despite the misconception that negative results are not as valuable as positive results, reporting of negative results can allow for refinement of theories or methods, encourage discussion within the field, improve quality control, and ultimately help to advance science by filling gaps in knowledge (Lehrer et al, 2007;Matosin et al, 2014). Data repositories may be helpful in increasing access to preclinical findings and mitigating the issue of publication bias.…”

When Is a Service an Essential Public Service?

“…Rather than finding the anticipated results, or even contrary relations that would have required rejecting the initial hypotheses, the overall findings were generally weak or even absent. This is obviously a disappointing find for a researcher, but it is more common than what most published research suggests (Lehrer et al 2007). On the other hand, it creates a need to reconsider hypotheses and to rethink data, models, and theories.…”