The Value of Publishing Negative Results in Neuroscience: Addressing Publication Bias and Enhancing Reproducibility
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.13129/3035-062X/prnr-4647Keywords:
Negative Results, Publication bias, Reproducibility, Effect Sizes, Registered ReportsAbstract
Publication bias poses a critical challenge in scientific literature, where positive results are more frequently highlighted than negative or null findings. This bias distorts the evidence base, undermining transparency, integrity, and the reproducibility of scientific discoveries.
In the field of neuroscience, these issues are particularly significant due to the complexity of brain processes and individual variability in responses.
This article explores the importance of publishing negative and non-confirmatory results, emphasizing their role in reducing publication bias and strengthening the reliability of scientific conclusions. Through an analysis of representative studies, we discuss the impact of negative findings on reproducibility and the overall understanding of neuroscientific phenomena. Additionally, we propose strategies and recommendations to encourage the publication of such results, fostering a culture of transparency and methodological robustness in neuroscience research. The clinical implications of addressing publication bias are also highlighted, showcasing how balanced reporting can influence patient care and treatment strategies. At the end, some statistical strategies were presented to address the discussed bias.
References
Chambers CD. Registered reports: a new publishing initiative at Cortex. Cortex. 2013 Mar;49(3):609-10. doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2012.12.016. Epub 2012 Dec 26. PMID: 23347556.
Easterbrook PJ, Berlin JA, Gopalan R, Matthews DR. Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet. 1991 Apr 13;337(8746):867-72. doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(91)90201-y. PMID: 1672966.
Forstmeier W, Wagenmakers EJ, Parker TH. Detecting and avoiding likely false-positive findings - a practical guide. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2017 Nov;92(4):1941-1968. doi: 10.1111/brv.12315. Epub 2016 Nov 23. PMID: 27879038.
Harrer, M., Cuijpers, P., Furukawa, T., & Ebert, D. (2021). Doing meta-analysis with R: A hands-on guide. Chapman and Hall/CRC.
Ioannidis JP. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2005 Aug;2(8):e124. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124. Epub 2005 Aug 30. Erratum in: PLoS Med. 2022 Aug 25;19(8):e1004085. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1004085. PMID: 16060722; PMCID: PMC1182327.
Ioannidis JP, Munafò MR, Fusar-Poli P, Nosek BA, David SP. Publication and other reporting biases in cognitive sciences: detection, prevalence, and prevention. Trends Cogn Sci. 2014 May;18(5):235-41. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2014.02.010. Epub 2014 Mar 18. PMID: 24656991; PMCID: PMC4078993.
Kriegeskorte, N., Simmons, W., Bellgowan, P. et al. Circular analysis in systems neuroscience: the dangers of double dipping. Nat Neurosci 12, 535–540 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.2303
Marks-Anglin A, Chen Y. A historical review of publication bias. Res Synth Methods. 2020 Nov;11(6):725-742. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1452. Epub 2020 Sep 17. PMID: 32893970.
Mlinarić A, Horvat M, Šupak Smolčić V. Dealing with the positive publication bias: Why you should really publish your negative results. Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2017 Oct 15;27(3):030201. doi: 10.11613/BM.2017.030201. PMID: 29180912; PMCID: PMC5696751.
Scheel AM, Schijen MRMJ, Lakens D. An Excess of Positive Results: Comparing the Standard Psychology Literature With Registered Reports. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science. 2021;4(2). doi:10.1177/25152459211007467
Soderberg CK, Errington TM, Schiavone SR, Bottesini J, Thorn FS, Vazire S, Esterling KM, Nosek BA. Initial evidence of research quality of registered reports compared with the standard publishing model. Nat Hum Behav. 2021 Aug;5(8):990-997. doi: 10.1038/s41562-021-01142-4. Epub 2021 Jun 24. PMID: 34168323.
Szűcs D, Ioannidis JP. Empirical assessment of published effect sizes and power in the recent cognitive neuroscience and psychology literature. PLoS Biol. 2017 Mar 2;15(3):e2000797. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2000797. Erratum in: PLoS Biol. 2021 Mar 5;19(3):e3001151. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001151. PMID: 28253258; PMCID: PMC5333800.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Articles and conference papers published in Preliminary Reports and Negative Results in Life Science and Humanities are distributed under the terms and conditions of a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported License. Correspondingly, authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
