Can publishing negative results advance science ?
Last evening I attended a panel discussion entitled, “Making the Web work for Science” hosted by Science Commons. It was held at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco and moderated by Tim O’Reilly. On the panel were Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia; Stephen Friend, MD, PhD President, CEO and a Co-Founder of Sage; andJohn Wilbanks, VP of Science at Creative Commons.
While I was hoping more would be discussed on modeling the habits of researchers with web tools, the focus on Open Science was still a good conversation. At one point, Dr. Friend mentioned the need to publish negative results. With the ability to inexpensively self-publish and distribute data on the Web, why then, aren’t we seeing more of this?
Trying to answer from my own experience as a researcher, there are at least three reasons, or rather fears:
For the greater good of science, these points are superficial. As Dr. Friend pointed out, people need to read about negative results, so that the same wheel is not reinvented over and over again. While traditional journals do not have the capacity or resources to include negative results for peer-review and publication, the Web does.
While I was a doctoral candidate I faced this situation. My PI did not want to try to publish some results I had gotten from a project on mouse hematopoietic stem cells and gene therapy. The results were not even entirely negative, but were mild improvements over the existing science. In a thesis committee meeting, I was shocked to hear the response of one of my advisors, a Nobel Laureate, “Publish it. We need that information to build upon it.”
Sadly, those results never did make it into a proper journal, only my dissertation, yet because of the Web, that chapter is now freely available to everyone. I published it on my Mendeley profile. Download the awesomeness .
What about those three fears listed above though?
The Web is a wide-open frontier for the taking. There are very few experts in any field archiving their negative (or positive) data on the Web for others to annotate. Now would be the time to stake a claim on your piece of the frontier. While some are using Mendeley to do that, others are using PLoS ONE. Whichever outlet you choose, the world needs those FUBAR results.
To learn how Mendeley can help you publish and organize research, go here.
Who is killing Science on the Web ? Publishers or Scienctists ?
Killing the advancement of science on the Web is killing the advancement of science as a whole.Navigating the Information Deluge in Modern Research
In today's fast-paced academic environment, staying abreast of all relevant research in one's field has become a Herculean task. Decades ago, a researcher might have kept pace with the essential publications and developments within their specialty. Now, the sheer volume of information, compounded by the necessity of cross-disciplinary insights, makes comprehensive coverage unattainable. This article explores innovative strategies and technologies that are transforming how researchers access and utilize the vast seas of academic content, ensuring they capture what's most relevant to their work.