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.
Footnotes
-
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
-
Funding
All authors are supported by the Schizophrenia Research Institute, utilising infrastructure funding from the NSW Ministry of Health. N.M. and J.S.L. acknowledge Australian Rotary Health for support in the form of an Ian Scott Scholarship.
- © 2014. Published by The Company of Biologists Ltd
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium provided that the original work is properly attributed.
Article navigation
Related articles
Cited by...
More in this TOC section
Similar articles
Subject collections
Other journals from The Company of Biologists
First person – Zhaoyang, Omkara, Christine and Yong
Catch up with our first authors in the latest interviews. Zhaoyang Liu, Omkara Lakshmi Veeranki, Christine Lehner and Yong Chen discuss the implications of their research, life as an early-career researcher and their next steps.
A new resource article by Dipen Maru's group describes a patient-derived orthotopic xenograft model of gastroesphageal cancer that maintains the morphological and molecular characteristics of the source tumour.
There are still funded places available for early-career researchers at July’s Workshop on inflammaging and regeneration! The deadline for applications is 14 February. We’re also interested to hear your ideas for Workshops – find out more about how we can provide support.
The first preLight of 2020 and the first time we’ve highlighted a medRxiv preprint! Zhang-He Goh discusses a new preprint by Witte et al. assessing the correlation between ovarian cancer patient-derived organoids and patients’ clinical response to chemotherapeutics.
Cover article – Regulation of terminal hypertrophic chondrocyte differentiation in Prmt5 mutant mice modeling infantile idiopathic scoliosis
On the cover, research by Liu et al. demonstrates that the loss of Prmt5 osteochondral progenitors impairs terminal hypertrophic chondrocyte differentiation, leading to defects in endochondral bone formation and models infantile idiopathic scoliosis in mouse.