New academic journal only publishes 'unsurprising' research rejected by others

Post by JuettnerDistrib » Fri, Aug 21, 2020, 8:33 AM UTC

kraetzin wrote: post #14

Half of my PhD thesis is considered "unpublishable" because, after doing the work, my supervisors felt it's actually "unsurprising" that it didn't work out. We took methods that had been exploited to improve on previous results for over a decade to their logical extreme, and found that this method no longer leads to improvements. After doing the work it seems obvious. A paper on the subject would almost be considered…

Post by ScottBurson » Fri, Aug 21, 2020, 8:47 AM UTC

bumby wrote: post #29

kraetzin wrote: post #14

Half of my PhD thesis is considered "unpublishable" because, after doing the work, my supervisors felt it's actually "unsurprising" that it didn't work out. We took methods that had been exploited to improve on previous results for over a decade to their logical extreme, and found that this method no longer leads to improvements. After doing the work it seems obvious. A paper on the subject would almost be considered…

My experience: I proposed a thesis to an advisor who deemed it unlikely to work. He ran it by a colleague who came to the same conclusion. I went to a different major and pursued the same thesis and invited the previous faculty who initially turned it down to the defense because it was relevant to their field. It was frustrating to hear them voice their opinions in the defense that they felt, “of course it world work…

Post by tralarpa » Fri, Aug 21, 2020, 8:54 AM UTC

mikk14 wrote: post #120

owenshen24 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sucks to hear. Null results are important, as you say, if only to dissuade others from doing the same. See also the "file-drawer problem" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication_bias ). Also, with regards to the incentives in the field and the lack of null results, there's always Ioannidis's classic work ( https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/jo... ).

I disagree. Negative results are important. Null results are of very limited interest. The two are worlds apart. A null result simply means you tried something and it didn't work. But you don't know why. You haven't proven it didn't work. There are literally millions of reasons why something might not work. For instance, you could try to use compound X to cure disease Y, observe no effect, and conclude that X doesn't…

Post by cjfd » Fri, Aug 21, 2020, 8:55 AM UTC

Post by MaxBarraclough » Fri, Aug 21, 2020, 9:29 AM UTC

spidersouris wrote: post #125

MaxBarraclough wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recall Dan Ariely mentioning this in one of his books. His field is psychology/behavioural economics, a field where very often either outcome of an experiment can seem obvious after the fact. (Questions like Do newborn babies have an intuitive understanding of gravity? ) As I recall, he restructured his lectures, asking upfront for a show of hands as to which outcome everyone anticipated, before the big reveal. Aft…

Do you know which book?