In their editorial in Disease Models & Mechanisms, Natalie Matosin and coworkers from the University of Wollongong and the Schizophrenia Research Institute in Syndey, Australia, are giving an excellent overview about the current view on negative results and the related issue of publication bias.
After showing some famous examples (e.g. the Wakefield-publication about vaccination and autism that was retracted not earlier than after twelve years), they also mention the time-comsuming attempts of the Australian Professor David Vaux to retract his own “News and Views” article in Nature.
From their own experiences, the authors describe the impact of negative findings in their own research and the criticism they encountered when they reported their findings in conferences.
A negative result is in response to a positive question. If you rephrased to a negative question, does that mean you have a positive finding?
In my opinion, and also judging from the described reactions from the scientific community, the authors’ reaction towards those negative findings is rather unusual: I hypothesize that if scientists encounter a null result, they are very likely to switch their topic, keeping the “unpublishable” result in fact unpublished (the so-called „file-drawer effect“).
To raise the sensitivity for negative outcomes, the authors refer to he various journals that are dedicated to publishing negative research outcomes, even if they consider the low attraction that these journals suffer from.
At the core, it is our duty as scientists to both: (1) publish all data, no matter what the outcome, because a negative finding is still an important finding; and (2) have a hypothesis to explain the finding.
Again, this publication describes a deep underlying problem in the scientific culture that needs rethinking.