Negative results can also send Nature? Nature: To promote scientific progress, we need to pay attention to negative results

Negative results can also be published

Negative results are an important part of science.

However, everyone is more afraid of negative results, and basically dare not write articles when encountering negative results.

A large part of this stems from the fact that "negative" findings are often less likely to be submitted, accepted, published or otherwise made public.

If a study gets negative results, the authors are usually very upset, but there are some studies with negative results, which are favored by peers and eventually published in top journals.

Recently, the editor has seen several articles.

On August 9, 2023, Nature magazine published an article. The article is titled NO Evidence for magnetic field effects on the behavior of Drosophila (no evidence that magnetic fields have an effect on the behavior of Drosophila).

Just looking at the title, we can find that this article has obtained a negative research result.

Of course, the paper is indeed a negative result: After testing a total of 108,609 fruit flies of different strains over a period of six years, the study concluded that fruit flies have no innate preference for magnetic fields. The researchers strongly recommend continued nocturnal migratory songbirds as a research option for elucidating mechanisms of light-dependent magnetic perception.

On August 15, JAMA, with an impact factor of 120, published 3 articles with negative research results.

In fact, in recent years, many articles with negative experimental results have been published in top journals.

In October 2021, an article with negative research results was also published in the top medical journal NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE (New England Journal of Medicine, IF: 158.5).

In August 2021, there was also a study with negative results published in the top journal Annals of Oncology (IF: 50.5).

Therefore, studies with negative results can also be published in top medical journals.

To promote scientific progress, we need to pay attention to negative results

Anyone who has done a little bit of scientific research knows that there are far more negative results than positive results in experiments, but they are rarely seen in published papers.

Are negative results meaningless and worthless? Obviously not. In fact, many people felt that it was necessary to publish the negative results as well.

For example, Devang Mehta, a systems biologist at the University of Alberta in Canada, once wrote an article in the career column of Nature magazine, sharing his experience and understanding.

At the end of April, my colleagues and I published an "unusual" scientific paper in Genome Biology, reporting an experiment with negative results.

Our experiment was an attempt to use the CRISPR gene editing tool to make cassava resistant to the very destructive cassava mosaic virus. However, while previous studies have indicated that CRISPR can confer viral immunity in plants by damaging viral DNA, our experiments have consistently shown the opposite.

In fact, our paper suggests that using CRISPR as an "immune weapon" in plants may lead to the evolution of viruses that are more resistant to CRISPR.

While this result is scientifically interesting, it doesn't fit the "positive results" that applied scientists like me are taught to value.

We tried and failed to submit to three other journals before finally finding Genome Biology. Why are reviewers and editors reluctant to publish a report showing the limited failure of CRISPR technology?

Scientists have gotten used to celebrating only successes, forgetting that most technological progress stems from failures. We all want to see our research results save lives and solve world hunger,

But I think it is very dangerous to pursue "positive results" too one-sidedly.

When experiments with "negative results" cannot be published in high-impact journals, other researchers cannot learn from them, and eventually repeat failed experiments, resulting in a waste of research funds, a lot of time and energy, and delaying real research.

My research does not solve the problem of cassava virus disease, but it is important to point out how other researchers can avoid my mistakes.

The one-sided pursuit of "positive results" may lead researchers to interpret their research results from a non-objective perspective, and in extreme cases, even defraud and manipulate data.

The problem is exacerbated by the fact that some research funding agencies only reward studies with positive results. And I think that getting negative results can further promote the progress of this field.

As scientists, we must make it clear that all important experimental conclusions should be taken seriously, regardless of whether the results are negative or positive.

Overall, having negative, zero, or inconclusive results does not mean that the research was poorly done. Negative experimental results are also worthy of publication.

Scientific research is not just about finding significant, positive results. Negative results are also of great significance to scientific research, because they help to correct wrong perceptions, avoid repeating invalid experiments, and save subsequent researchers a lot of time and resources.

According to the World Health Organization's statement on the public disclosure of clinical trial results, "researchers have an obligation to make public the results of their studies ... whether negative, inconclusive or positive, by publishing or otherwise making them available."

Suppose a study finds that a certain compound is not effective in treating a certain disease. This important information needs to be shared with the research community so that others can investigate other applications of the compound, or modify the molecule to do so, rather than repeating failed experiments needlessly.

Why is it so hard to publish a negative result

Publication of negative results has been frowned upon for a long time. Foreign academic circles discovered this problem very early, and gave it a name called "Publication Bias".

Why is it so difficult to publish negative results?

This is the current state of the academic environment, and everyone prefers to see good results.

■ The field of academic publishing prefers positive results.

As the editor-in-chief, deputy editor-in-chief, and editorial board member of many domestic and foreign journals, Wu Jiarui, executive dean of the School of Life and Health Sciences, Hangzhou Institute of Advanced Studies, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, told the "Chinese Journal of Science" that if a paper reporting a negative result is received, the editor is usually do not like to publish.

Just imagine, when you open an academic journal and it is full of "failed" experimental results, who is in the mood to read it?

"All conclusions must be supported by scientific evidence. If there is not enough scientific evidence (to confirm your expectations), then there is only one place for your article to be published—preprint." Wu Jiarui said.

However, the lack of a peer-reviewed preprint is itself controversial. In 2021, the Australian Research Council (ARC) rejected several grant applications on the grounds that they cited non-peer-reviewed material, such as preprints.

■ Investigators themselves are largely uninterested in publishing negative results.

In fact, from the point of view of attitude alone, it is not that scientists do not accept negative results. Many scientists said in an interview with the "China Science Daily" that they do not think that "negative results" are a "failure".

They believe that "the negative results of the negative results are also very important" "Some so-called 'failed' negative results are actually of high publication value, and they may create an opportunity to subvert existing theories" "Negative results that can pass peer review have The value of public publication" "Public negative results can at least show colleagues that this is not the way to go"……

However, although many people are willing to believe that "negative results" are not equal to "failure", everyone has time and financial pressure and is unwilling to spend more time publishing this negative result.

Zhang Wei, who is in charge of several general projects of the National Natural Science Foundation of China, believes that the pressure does not come from the assessment of the project itself, but from the competition when applying for the project.

"When applying for a project, others will look at the basis of your previous work. If the entire basis is negative, others will not give you funding. The project is very competitive, so (negative results) are easy to affect (the project application). " Zhang Wei said.

Yang Wei, academician of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and professor of Zhejiang University, also said that the negative results of the project will indeed affect the hit rate of the next funding application. If the previous project fails to meet the expected goals, the application will be 'not good-looking'".

Many researchers believe that instead of spending time explaining and verifying why the experiment failed, it is better to simply forget about it, pretend that nothing happened, and change the way that can produce results.

Some researchers are aware of the enlightenment of negative results, and worry that their premature reports will give new inspiration to competitors and make them fall behind.

Reference source:

■ Highlight negative results to improve science

■"Chinese Journal of Science" (2022-03-04 The original title of the 4th edition of the culture is "Where did the "failed" scientific research go?")