Negativity towards negative results: a discussion of the disconnect between scientific worth and scientific culture

Abstract

Science is often romanticised as a flawless system of knowledge building, where scientists work together to systematically find answers. In reality, this is not always the case. Dissemination of results are straightforward when the findings are positive, but what happens when you obtain results that support the null hypothesis, or do not fit with the current scientific thinking? In this Editorial, we discuss the issues surrounding publication bias and the difficulty in communicating negative results. Negative findings are a valuable component of the scientific literature because they force us to critically evaluate and validate our current thinking, and fundamentally move us towards unabridged science.

Teamwork, communication and safety climate: a systematic review of interventions to improve surgical culture

“…Similarly, improvements in culture, outcomes and efficiency may simply be an artefact of other structural changes to patient care rather than a result of studied interventions. Another possible explanation is publication bias, namely that unsuccessful attempts to improve culture are either not written up or not accepted for publication in peer-reviewed journals 67. Our findings are also limited by the precision of our search strategy.…”

Balancing measures or a balanced accounting of improvement impact: a qualitative analysis of individual and focus group interviews with improvement experts in Scotland

“…This may partly reflect publication bias, since authors are known to emphasise positive results and ‘ tuck away ’41 negative contextual features and failures 23. However, it also likely reflects more general lack of consideration or measurement of unintended consequences, consistent with an observed preoccupation with measuring prespecified local processes and outcomes ( goals ) 42–44.…”

Primary Research Data and Scholarly Communication

“…[18] This idea perhaps has diff erent signifi cance in the life sciences than in the physical sciences. In the life sciences, it is useful to know whether a particular drug has an adverse aff ect on a signifi cant percentage of the population, or in fact has any medicinal aff ect at all (keeping in mind the diff erence between correlation and causation).…”