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
Editor’s Choice – Mild maternal hyperglycemia in INSC93S transgenic pigs causes impaired glucose tolerance and metabolic alterations in neonatal offspring
Simone Renner and colleagues used a transgenic pig model to show that mild hyperglycemia in insulin-mutant mothers results in poorer glucose tolerance and metabolic disturbances in the offspring, even wild-type ones.
In their article and accompanying poster, Martina Konantz and colleagues summarize the last 20 years of research in zebrafish models for hematopoietic disorders, highlighting how these models were created and are being applied for translational research.
A new Resource article from Susanne Sattler’s group describes a refined MRI technique to quantify acute hemorrhagic myocarditis in mice.
Have you seen our interviews with the early-career first authors of our papers? Recently, we caught up with Karishma Chhabria, Eleftheria Pervolaraki, Tamio Furuse, Hiroshi Mizuma, Katja Graf, Antonia Last and Monika Tomecka.
DMM joins the Review Commons initiative
Disease Models & Mechanisms is pleased to be a part of the new and exciting Review Commons initiative, launched by EMBO and ASAPbio. Streamlining the publishing process, Review Commons enables high-quality peer review to take place before journal submission. Papers submitted to Review Commons will be assessed independently of any journal, focusing solely on the paper’s scientific rigor and merit.
preLights – preLights reaches 500 posts!
The success of preLights is down to the hard work of our preLighters. Head over to the preLights website to find out more about our most active early-career-researchers.