Leveling the Playing Field: A New Initiative to Publish Negative and Replication Data in Brain Trauma

• Published in: Neurotrauma reports 2020-10, Vol.1 (1), p.146-147
• Main Authors: Ferland-Beckham, Chantelle, Petty, Sandra, Prager, Eric, Harmon, Nicole, Haas, Magali, Jeromin, Andreas
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Guest Editorial
• ISSN: 2689-288X; 2689-288X
• DOI: 10.1089/neur.2020.0055

Our scientific culture has an embedded ethos that publishing positive results equates to more success, productivity, interest, and value. This has become apparent as the proportion of positive results published in scientific literature has increased by 6% per year since 19901 and, in neuroscience, estimates indicate that approximately 85% of manuscripts published include only positive results.2 Unfortunately, publishing only positive results has considerable consequences that significantly affect research progress. Indeed, when negative results (defined as studies that do not reach statistical significance or do not confirm expected results or working hypotheses) are withheld from the public record, scientific knowledge is skewed toward the positive results, many of which are irreproducible.3 This can lead to harmful interpretations of risk-benefit when clinical trial results remain unpublished4 or can negatively affect meta-analyses, leading to potentially biased conclusions for scientists, researchers, and policymakers.5 Failure to publish negative results delays scientific progress when researchers toil away in vain at ideas that are incorrect or flawed; this results in wasted time (especially when others repeat these failed experiments), effort, and money. At its most extreme, priority to publish positive results might lead researchers to resort to unethical approaches, including tweaking hypotheses that better suit the data,6 massaging data to draw conclusions that will appeal to prestigious research journals, or falsifying data. Publishing well-designed negative studies and replication studies are valuable to the scientific ecosystem for a number of reasons: 1) publishing such results that may contradict established consensus can open dialogue for a new understanding of a particular question; 2) researchers have a more complete picture of the state of their specific field and can design their research plans accordingly; and 3) funders can divert funding from erroneous or flawed hypotheses toward potentially more successful endeavors. Most importantly, publishing well-designed negative studies and replicating previously published studies leads to transparent and well-balanced reporting, tenets that are central to rigorous and efficient experimental design, scientific advancement, and improving patient outcomes. A scientific culture in which negative results or replicate studies are not valued exacerbates wastage and irreproducibility. Alternatively, k