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
DMM and COVID-19
We are aware that the COVID-19 pandemic is having an unprecedented impact on researchers worldwide. The Editors of all The Company of Biologists’ journals have been considering ways in which we can alleviate concerns that members of our community may have around publishing activities during this time. Read about the actions we are taking at this time.
Please don’t hesitate to contact the Editorial Office if you have any questions or concerns.
Professor Elizabeth Patton appointed as DMM’s next Editor-in-Chief
We are pleased to announce that The Company of Biologists directors have appointed Professor Elizabeth Patton as DMM's new Editor-in-Chief. As Paresh Vyas writes in his Editorial, Liz ‘brings vitality and a passion for the remit of DMM, and is deeply embedded in the community.’
Did you know DMM Conference Travel Grants can be used for online meetings?
With travel restrictions still in place, we want to continue supporting early-career researchers in their careers. DMM’s Conference Travel Grants can now be used to attend virtual and online scientific meetings, workshops, conferences and training courses.
The current application round closes on 8 February 2021 – find out more.
Identification of MYOM2 as a candidate gene in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and Tetralogy of Fallot, and its functional evaluation in the Drosophila heart
Research from Silke Sperling and colleagues uses Drosophila to identify MYOM2 as a candidate gene in congenital heart malformations in this issue’s Editor’s choice.
C. elegans as a disease model
A new Research article from Doyle et al., models spinal muscular atrophy in C. elegans to show that that targeting therapies to muscle cells is more effective than neuronal delivery. Find more research using C. elegans as a disease model in our latest subject collection.
Call for papers – The RAS Pathway: Diseases, Therapeutics and Beyond
Our upcoming special issue is now welcoming submissions until 1 April 2021. Guest-edited by Donita Brady (Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, USA) and Arvin Dar (Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, USA), the issue will focus on the targeting the RAS pathway. Find out more about the issue and how to submit your manuscript.
Interview – Kim Landry-Truchon and Nicolas Houde
In an interview, first authors Kim Landry-Truchon and Nicolas Houde discuss their mouse model of the early stages of pleuropulmonary blastoma, reflecting on the implications of their work and the future of their field.