4 ms·

You assume that null results are not worth it and are not the best of science. You seem to be ignoring the issue where researchers collectively waste time redoi

• 9rx 1y ago
  > You assume that null results are not worth it and are not the best of science. No. I make no such assumption. That may often be true, but there is nothing to stop a useful null result from being published. We also get things wrong from time to time. It is very possible that the best baseball player in the world has been overlooked by Major League Baseball. We're pretty good at scoping out the best, but nothing in life is perfect. If the best baseball player in the world ends up in the minor leagues instead, oh well? Does it really matter? You can still watch them there. Same goes for research. If something great doesn't make it into the formal publication system, you can still read it on the studier's website (if they put in the effort to publish it). > You seem to be ignoring the issue where researchers collectively waste time redoing "failing" studies again and again because the null results are not published I may be ignoring it, but if that's the case that's because it is irrelevant. There is no reason to not publish your "failing" studies. That's literally why the public internet was created (the original private internet was created for military, but next in line was university adoption — to be used for exactly that purpose!). > We fundamentally disagree here and I'm not willing to put in the effort needed to try to convince you otherwise Makes sense. There is nothing to convince me of. I was never not convinced. But it remains: Who wants to put in the effort? Unless you are going to start putting guns to people's backs, what are you expecting?
  • jraph 1y ago
    > I was never not convinced Ok. > There is no reason to not publish your "failing" studies. That's literally why the public internet was created You are suggesting researchers should blog about their null results? It seems to me the null results deserve the same route as any other paper, with peer reviews, etc. It matters, because this route is what other researchers trust. They wouldn't base their work on some non reviewed blog article that can barely be cited. You don't even base good science on some random article on Arxiv that was not published in some recognized avenue. If you are using some existing work to skip an experiment because it tells you "we've already tried this, it didn't show any effect", you want to be able to trust it like any other work. Hell, as a random citizen in a random discussion, especially one with a PhD, I don't want to be citing a blog article as established scientific knowledge. And yes, getting published in a proper, peer reviewed avenue is work, but we all need to deeply internalize that it's not lesser work if the result is null. > Unless you are going to start putting guns to people's backs, what are you expecting? If researchers collectively decide it's worth pursuing, it's all about creating the incentives at the right place. Like any other research, you could be rewarded, recognized and all. High impact journals and conferences could encourage researchers to publish / present their null results. Of course, we are not speaking about such things like "what two unrelated things could I try to measure to find some absence of correlation", we are speaking about "I think those two things are linked, let's make an experiment. Oh, no, they are not correlated in the end!" -> the experiment is done either way, just that the results also deserve to be published either way. And the experiment should only be published if it doesn't exhibit a fatal flaw or something, we are not talking about flawed experiment either.
    • 9rx 1y ago
      > You are suggesting researchers should blog about their null results? If they want to. Especially if it doesn't meet the standard for the publication system, why not? > It seems to me the null results deserve the same route as any other paper, with peer reviews, etc. If it ranks with the best of them, it is deserving. There isn't room for everything, though, just as there isn't room for everyone who has ever played baseball to join the MLB. That would defeat the entire purpose of what these venues offer. But that doesn't mean you can't play. Anyone who wants to play baseball can do so, just as anyone who wants to publish research can do so. > If researchers collectively decide it's worth pursuing It only takes an individual. Unlike baseball, you can actually play publishing research all by yourself! 1. Where do we read your failed research? Given your stance, it would look very foolish to find out that you haven't published it. 2. Do you draw a line? Like, if you add a pinch more salt to your dinner and found that it doesn't taste any better, do you publish that research?