2 ms·

I think it would be reasonable for a paper to cite the prior art showing negative results when: - the paper is a meta-analysis, or - the paper shows a contrad

by dsr_ 7y ago

I think it would be reasonable for a paper to cite the prior art showing negative results when: - the paper is a meta-analysis, or - the paper shows a contradiction of prior negative results, or - the paper's hypothesis explains the prior negative results Normalization of publication of negative results is also useful as a goal of its own; consider that a hundred-person high energy physics experiment probably has room for two hundred negative-result papers along with the two winners, as long as they properly pre-register their hypotheses.

Vinnl 7y ago
That is fair, and I think you're right. That said, I think those cases are uncommon enough that it's still practically a guarantee that negative results will not be racking up citations, and hence there still being very little incentive to publish those negative results. There are some exceptions to this, of course, but I think those would get published now anyway. In other words: I don't think limited publication venues is the reason few negative results get published. [1] But absolutely, it should be normalised. I also do think preregistration would be an effective tool in making that happen, if funders start requiring it - which is a challenge in its own right. [1] I think this summarises my views best, so I'm adding this to my original comment as well.