If a bunch of people are working toward a shared goal – like, say, curing a form of cancer – it would make sense for them to compare notes, right? Significant discoveries should be made public so that researchers can adjust their efforts accordingly and move everyone closer to solving the problem. That’s what journal articles are – an opportunity for researchers to share information and get closer to solving whatever medical, scientific or technological challenges they’re grappling with. Except when the system doesn’t work.
One of the ways the system can fail is when researchers don’t publish negative results. Negative results are what you get when a hypothesis fails. For example, you might think that Compound X will prevent Cancer Z from metastasizing. But if your experiments show that Compound X does not prevent Cancer Z from metastasizing, you have a negative result.
I’ve always felt that negative results are important. If other researchers are also really interested in Compound X, they would probably want to know that your experiments showed Compound X was ineffective. That way they could make an informed decision about how (or whether) to proceed with their own Compound X experiments. But they probably won’t find out about your Compound X experiments, because most negative results never get published.
But maybe I’m wrong. Maybe negative results are not important. This is the first in a series of posts exploring whether negative results matter, and the challenge of getting them published. (Note: you may be interested in this post on a journal editor’s perspective on negative results and this post regarding funding agencies’ support for publishing negative results.)
A lot has been written about negative results and the importance of sharing them within the scientific and medical research communities. As Jim Caryl wrote on SciLogs last year, “Negative results are still results, they can still tell us something new; almost as important as knowing that X causes Y within a given context, is knowing that X doesn’t cause Y within this context.” Unfortunately, Caryl adds, “within the current bias of publishing, the self-correcting nature of science is only possible on results that can be refined and built upon, or debunked whilst also presenting a new positive finding. This leaves a lot of ‘orphan’ results that remain apparently unchallenged within the literature, despite being incorrect.”
In short, Caryl puts the onus on journals, saying they make it unduly difficult to publish negative results. (In a separate post, Caryl detailed his struggle to publish a paper on negative results.)
And a 2011 post by Ivan Oransky discusses the so-called “positive publication bias” as well: “In 2008, for example, a group of researchers published a New England Journal of Medicine study showing that nearly all — or 94 [percent] — of published studies of antidepressants used by the FDA to make approval decisions had positive results. But the researchers found that when the FDA included unpublished studies, only about half – or 51 [percent] — were positive.”
But while Caryl puts the blame squarely on the journals, Oransky doesn’t point fingers. And some people put the blame on the researchers (or the people who fund them).
Not the Journals?
Ben Goldacre, a Wellcome Research Fellow in Epidemiology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (and Bad Science blogger), testified on this issue April 22 before the U.K. House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee, which is looking into clinical trials. Goldacre, who is also part of the AllTrials campaign to make all clinical study results public, told the select committee that medical journals are not the problem when it comes to publishing negative trial results.
In his testimony, Goldacre said that journals are “not the main barrier to publication” of negative results. “With the advent of open access journals where the business model is not dependent on the need to sell subscriptions with high profile ‘positive’ papers, there are now several open-access academic journals – such as the open-access journal Trials, and journals from BioMedCentral and the Public Library of Science – that will publish trials regardless of whether the results are positive.”
In a memo submitted along with his testimony, Goldacre argues that it is drug companies (who pay for clinical trials) and researchers who are withholding negative results. “Currently, drug companies and researchers are allowed to withhold the results of clinical trials, on treatments currently in use, from doctors and patients if they wish to,” Goldacre wrote. “This means that we are misled about the benefits and risks of treatments.”
And there are certainly researchers who don’t like to publish their negative results.
One senior researcher, who shall remain nameless, put it this way: “I think that most researchers in life science fields would not find these publications very useful. We are more interested in how things work rather than learning that our hypotheses were incorrect. That is, we use the failed experiments to adjust the hypotheses and conduct more experiments. Many times the negative results are included in research articles. I would not like to have to wade through tons of articles describing negative results because I would rather spend my time reading articles that tell me how things work.”
And that’s a problem facing at least some publishers who are actively looking for negative results to publish. Johan Kotze, of the University of Helsinki, is the editor of the Journal of Negative Results, which was established in 2003 to publish negative results in the fields of ecology and evolutionary biology.
“We truly believe that by reporting negative results we will benefit the scientific community,” Kotze says. But Kotze reports that “we’re having trouble finding researchers to submit, perhaps mainly because, one, some think it’s a joke, while, two, others are so pressed with publishing in high-flying journals (to secure funding, etc.) that they’d rather try publishing in more established journals.”
Does It Matter?
But whether researchers are not submitting papers on negative results, or journals are not accepting them, the fact remains that negative results are not showing up in high-profile outlets.
Oransky pointed to a 2011 study in his post that evaluated how often negative or inconclusive results were published in surgical journals. Here’s how Oransky summarized the findings: “In the top-ranked journals, 6 [percent] of studies were negative or inconclusive, compared to 12 [percent] in the middle-tier journals, and 16 [percent] of those in the lowest-tier. (Of note: The lowest-ranked journal the researchers looked at was still in the top third of surgery journals overall.)”
In other words, while negative results may make their way into journal articles, they’re unlikely to be found in the most prestigious (and visible) journals.
And that means that there are scientists devoting time and effort to research that someone out there has already tried – and already knows will fail.
I find this subject fascinating and, over the next couple weeks, hope to run additional posts featuring different perspectives on the publication of negative results – including interviews with folks from peer-reviewed journals and research funding agencies. Stay tuned. (Update: additional posts are now up. See note at end of fourth paragraph.)