消极的结果:消极的看法限制了它们增加可重复性的潜力。

Jaime A Teixeira da Silva
{"title":"消极的结果:消极的看法限制了它们增加可重复性的潜力。","authors":"Jaime A Teixeira da Silva","doi":"10.1186/s12952-015-0033-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Negative results are an important building block in the development of scientific thought, primarily because most likely the vast majority of data is negative, i.e., there is not a favorable outcome. Only very limited data is positive, and that is what tends to get published, albeit alongside a sub-set of negative results to emphasize the positive nature of the positive results. Yet, not all negative results get published. Part of the problem lies with a traditional mind-set and rigid publishing frame-work that tends to view negative results in a negative light, or that only tends to reward scientists primarily for presenting positive findings. This opinion piece indicates that in addition to a deficient mind-set, there are also severe limitations in the availability of publishing channels where negative results could get published. </p>","PeriodicalId":73849,"journal":{"name":"Journal of negative results in biomedicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s12952-015-0033-9","citationCount":"39","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Negative results: negative perceptions limit their potential for increasing reproducibility.\",\"authors\":\"Jaime A Teixeira da Silva\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12952-015-0033-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Negative results are an important building block in the development of scientific thought, primarily because most likely the vast majority of data is negative, i.e., there is not a favorable outcome. Only very limited data is positive, and that is what tends to get published, albeit alongside a sub-set of negative results to emphasize the positive nature of the positive results. Yet, not all negative results get published. Part of the problem lies with a traditional mind-set and rigid publishing frame-work that tends to view negative results in a negative light, or that only tends to reward scientists primarily for presenting positive findings. This opinion piece indicates that in addition to a deficient mind-set, there are also severe limitations in the availability of publishing channels where negative results could get published. </p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73849,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of negative results in biomedicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-07-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s12952-015-0033-9\",\"citationCount\":\"39\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of negative results in biomedicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12952-015-0033-9\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of negative results in biomedicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12952-015-0033-9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 39

摘要

负面结果是科学思想发展的重要组成部分,主要是因为绝大多数数据很可能是负面的,即没有一个有利的结果。只有非常有限的数据是积极的,这就是倾向于发表的数据,尽管与消极结果的子集一起强调积极结果的积极性质。然而,并不是所有的负面结果都会被公布。部分问题在于传统的思维定式和僵化的出版框架——往往以消极的眼光看待消极的结果,或者只倾向于奖励那些提出积极发现的科学家。这篇评论文章表明,除了思维定式不足之外,可以发布负面结果的发布渠道也存在严重限制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Negative results: negative perceptions limit their potential for increasing reproducibility.

Negative results are an important building block in the development of scientific thought, primarily because most likely the vast majority of data is negative, i.e., there is not a favorable outcome. Only very limited data is positive, and that is what tends to get published, albeit alongside a sub-set of negative results to emphasize the positive nature of the positive results. Yet, not all negative results get published. Part of the problem lies with a traditional mind-set and rigid publishing frame-work that tends to view negative results in a negative light, or that only tends to reward scientists primarily for presenting positive findings. This opinion piece indicates that in addition to a deficient mind-set, there are also severe limitations in the availability of publishing channels where negative results could get published.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信