h a l f b a k e r yA riddle wrapped in a mystery inside a rich, flaky crust
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
When conducting preliminary experiments, scientists try out many ideas that don't work. These results are rarely published, but one must wonder how many times the same experiments are tried by different groups. A comprehensive online database from all branches of science could be accessed and searched
to see if your proposed idea has already been tested and discarded. I think it should be a use at your own risk, non peer-reviewed resource with commenting and email addresses available. Talking to the people who conducted the experiments would enable you to determine if you think their methodology may have been inaccurate. Or perhaps you may want to pursue a different hypothesis. This may preserve valuable resources in the lab.
There is already a "Journal of Negative Results." But this is hardly enough to handle the voluminous amount of negative data that occurs in every field, every day.
Journal of Negative Results for Biomedicine
http://www.jnrbm.com/
[leinypoo13, Aug 09 2007]
What if journals already do this?
http://vitals.nbcne...risk-reduction?lite
90% of seminal research wrong? [4and20, Aug 24 2012]
Now Baked
http://www.figshare.com
Same general idea [leinypoo13, Aug 24 2012]
Obligated
http://www.icmje.or...hing_1negative.html
Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted [4and20, Sep 12 2012]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Destination URL.
E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
|
| |
Many times the precursor experiments that led up to a successful experiment are discussed in the published literature. Also certain times the failure of an experiment is as important and groundbreaking as the success of one. i think you want to be careful in classing negative results as failures. |
|
| |
"Many times the precursor experiments that led up to a successful experiment are discussed in the published literature." |
|
| |
I agree. But many times they are not published. I also agree that negative results are extremely valuable. |
|
| |
Yes, it would have to be free and collaborative. |
|
| |
I bet that journals themselves are not long for this earth. Peer review will take place in real time just like this. |
|
| |
It's important to be clear about the two
alternative meanings of "Negative
results". |
|
| |
The first is what you might call a
"negative discovery" - the finding that
something isn't true. For instance, gene
X is not up-regulated in response to
drug Y. This is a piece of information
almost as useful as the converse
"positive" finding. Such results are
sometimes published, and should be,
but of course they often aren't because
they are not as exciting. For such
cases, some sort of easy route to
publication would be good. An online
format would be good, but there ought
to be some sort of peer-review because
working scientists live or die by their
publications: they need to be able to
cite this as a peer-reviewed publication,
otherwise (regrettably) they will not
spend their time on it. |
|
| |
The second type of "negative result" is
what you might call a "technical failure".
For example, "we tried to do X, and it
didn't work". This information is still
slightly useful to working scientists
(and this category can overlap with the
"negative discovery" category), but only
to a limited extent. In fact, I would not
want to read a journal or database of
this type. Most of what my group tries
to do, we do from a sense of blissful
ignorance: I try to find out just enough
to try something, and then go ahead.
Often we fail where others have failed
before. But equally often, we succeed
where others have failed, simply
because we do things slightly
differently, or find solutions to
problems as they arise. If we really sat
down and looked at the ways in which
everyone else had failed, then we
probably wouldn't start. Ignorance is
often essential. |
|
| |
//I bet that journals themselves are not
long for this earth. Peer review will take
place in real time just like this.// |
|
| |
Have you published anything? The
whole point of publishing in a good
peer-reviewed journal is that, if your
paper is accepted, that is a sign that it
has been read and criticised by two or
more experts in the field (and often
modified as a result of their comments).
That is why peer-reviewed publications
are the currency of science. |
|
| |
There are lots of things wrong with peer
review (referees are anonymous but the
authors are not, leaving plenty of room
for bias and grudges; some referees are
just plain dumb or lazy; three referees
will often give three different opinions
of a paper). But, nobody yet has found
a better solution. |
|
| |
I can publish all my stuff online without
peer-review if I choose to (on my
group's website, for instance), but
there's no point: it doesn't mean
anything. Nor do I want to read stuff
which has been evaluated by a lot of
average schmoes: I want to know that
what I'm reading has been reviewed by
at least a couple of experts, and also by
the editor of a good journal. |
|
| |
What was it Thomas Edison said while working to perfect the electric light bulb; |
|
| |
"I have not failed 700 times. I have not failed once. I have
succeeded in proving that those 700 ways will not work. When I have
eliminated the ways that will not work, I will find the way that will
work." –Edison |
|
| |
Sometimes it is important for scientists to try and fail and go through the same set of baby steps to gain a full understanding of the problems they will encounter. I think taking shortcuts by simply stating that all these have been tried and not worked may leave them critically short of the required experience to troubleshoot and improve their process or technique. |
|
| |
//Ignorance is often essential.// |
|
| |
Agreed, and [marked-for-tagline] (or would be if I was an admin) though I would omit the word "often". |
|
| |
actually thoought you were referring to the HB itself from the title. : ) |
|
| |
This is sort of baked as PLoS One: limited peer review; looks like they would publish anything that might be informative. I agree with Maxwell, though, that "We couldn't get conclusive results with this method" isn't useful, unless you know the details of their relevant expertise. In which case you're probably talking to them anyway. |
|
| |
This is absolutly brilliant. People need to embrace the value of failure. |
|
| |
There was a story once of a man who was cursed to loose every single bet he placed. His wife then, made a fortune in Vegas by consistantly betting against him. |
|
| |
Knowing what doesn't work is just as valuable, *in the long term* as knowing what does work. |
|
| |
Issues of peer review and the lack of value of stuff form average schmoes can be made up for by automatically tracking the quantity and quality of the findings as any number of online social networks will tell you. E.g. One report that X doesn't work has little value on its own, but 500 start to show a trend; especially if there are no reports to the contrary. Also, when Mr. A says that X doesn't work, and Mr. B proves him wrong, then if Mr. A is also unable to make Y and Z work, it is less likely that they are true negative results. |
|
| |
Failures are often times more important than successes. I think your idea is more to cover the absurdities. For instance cats do not make good rocket fuel. researches have access to all relevant information. I have never known or currently know of a time where someone was given a solution to a problem and then proceeded to attempt all these experiments to obtain the same results. That would be pointless. |
|
| |
You may be looking for a negative result. Pouring acid on someone might be positive. People in their field know whats up and those who are simply digging for hope on an idea they made on a subject they know nothing about should read more. |
|
| |
Only because it's surprising and originally published in a respected journal, I wonder how the link regarding the quality of cancer research affects the publishing process? |
|
| |
//Comprehensive Online Database of Negative Results |
|
| |
I tried logging onto it, and all I got was the 404 error message... |
|
| |