3 ms·

This comment made me realize something. There’s always been grumbling in the academic community about how negative or less exciting results aren’t publishable.

This comment made me realize something. There’s always been grumbling in the academic community about how negative or less exciting results aren’t publishable. As a result, there is quite a bit of knowledge that is essentially “lost” as no one ever bothers to write it down. Part of the reason this happens is that publishing unexciting results is unhelpful professionally, but I suspect another aspect here is that researchers know that no one would read such results; it is hard enough to keep up with the positive results in the field, much less negative results. So, in that sense they are not “contributing to the sum total of human knowledge”, which I think is a major part of many scientists’ motivations. So then, in a world where the outcomes of all experiments could be reasonably fed into an AI model, it seems that there could be a great deal of value in having scientists publish these “low value” negative results, even in a relatively informal format (i.e. not worrying about formatting, perhaps skipping peer review, etc.). That way even if a human never reads the paper, at the very least an AI “scientist” model would pick it up. I don’t think you can professionally incentivize this. Rather, scientists would need to do this out of the desire to contribute to the sum total of human knowledge, which could be embodied and not forgotten by these scientist AI’s.

ehsanu1 2y ago
There seems to be a couple of field-specific journals of negative results for similar purposes. It seems like there should be value in citing negative results to inform current research. Perhaps if there were more journals dedicated to this, or a single one not limited to specific fields, there would still be some incentive to publish there, if the effort required was low enough (another area where AI might be applied: writing it up).
godelski 2y ago
Where the publishing of negative results is needed (and generally wanted) is in the paper of the experiments that did work. The problem is that paper is missing all the failures along the way. It is totally fine if this is all thrown in the appendix but the problem becomes that we have to write things quickly and including negative results only increases the likelihood of your work getting rejected because reviewers see their role as antagonistically, to find errors. The problem really comes down to not letting people admit mistakes. Good work can be done even while many mistakes exist. But a work is better when the mistakes are easier to find. Short term vs long term reward. Because in the long term someone needs to replicate your experiments, even in some minor way just to show that their thing is better than yours. Having information about what didn't work is helpful for learning new paths that will work. I don't think many scientists really want to publish papers like "We did X, X had no results", but rather "We did X! X is awesome! But along the way we tried Y, Z, ... which were not so successful. We think Y because... we have no fucking clue about Z." You're still pushing the exciting stuff. You're just giving it more context.

ehsanu1 2y ago

There seems to be a couple of field-specific journals of negative results for similar purposes. It seems like there should be value in citing negative results to inform current research. Perhaps if there were more journals dedicated to this, or a single one not limited to specific fields, there would still be some incentive to publish there, if the effort required was low enough (another area where AI might be applied: writing it up).

godelski 2y ago

Where the publishing of negative results is needed (and generally wanted) is in the paper of the experiments that did work. The problem is that paper is missing all the failures along the way. It is totally fine if this is all thrown in the appendix but the problem becomes that we have to write things quickly and including negative results only increases the likelihood of your work getting rejected because reviewers see their role as antagonistically, to find errors. The problem really comes down to not letting people admit mistakes. Good work can be done even while many mistakes exist. But a work is better when the mistakes are easier to find. Short term vs long term reward. Because in the long term someone needs to replicate your experiments, even in some minor way just to show that their thing is better than yours. Having information about what didn't work is helpful for learning new paths that will work. I don't think many scientists really want to publish papers like "We did X, X had no results", but rather "We did X! X is awesome! But along the way we tried Y, Z, ... which were not so successful. We think Y because... we have no fucking clue about Z." You're still pushing the exciting stuff. You're just giving it more context.