New academic journal only publishes 'unsurprising' research rejected by others
1–10 of 207 posts
Re: New academic journal only publishes 'unsurprising' research rejected by others
#2Good, science needs more of this. A negative result is a result, and if you don't publish it, then you end up skewing the distribution of results. Which can lead to people (and meta studies) drawing incorrect conclusions.
Re: New academic journal only publishes 'unsurprising' research rejected by others
#3I like the idea but I don't really get why they accept "statistically insignificant" results. What I expect from a scientific paper is to prove (even emprically) something. For example, if a paper claims something like "we show that using method X instead of Y doesn't improve the results", it won't get published on most journals... except this one, which is awesome, but the paper still has to prove that claim.
Re: New academic journal only publishes 'unsurprising' research rejected by others
#4this is old news from last year, also there seems to be only one issue with one article, which means this project is stillborn. https://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/handle/10092/14932/browse?type=d...
Re: New academic journal only publishes 'unsurprising' research rejected by others
#5We also need a journal to publish methods that failed. I did so much work during my PhD that was dead end and is not documented.
Re: New academic journal only publishes 'unsurprising' research rejected by others
#6I like the idea but I don't really get why they accept "statistically insignificant" results. What I expect from a scientific paper is to prove (even emprically) something. For example, if a paper claims something like "we show that using method X instead of Y doesn't improve the results", it won't get published on most journals... except this one, which is awesome, but the paper still has to prove that claim.
If the only goal is p 0.05 and there's many groups around the world trying the same experiment, we should hope that they all publish their non-results otherwise by chance someone is going to have a significant result just by luck.
Re: New academic journal only publishes 'unsurprising' research rejected by others
#7I like the idea but I don't really get why they accept "statistically insignificant" results. What I expect from a scientific paper is to prove (even emprically) something. For example, if a paper claims something like "we show that using method X instead of Y doesn't improve the results", it won't get published on most journals... except this one, which is awesome, but the paper still has to prove that claim.
When you open the field to reward research itself rather than p-hacking, everyone benefits.
It's like a flea market. Bargain bin discounts, junk to many, valuable to some, but it shifts the economics of the whole system and lets specialty niche researchers not have to reinvent the wheel.
Also, knowing that a method or study was statistically insignificant is statistically significant for future study design.
Thanks!
Re: New academic journal only publishes 'unsurprising' research rejected by others
#8I like the idea but I don't really get why they accept "statistically insignificant" results. What I expect from a scientific paper is to prove (even emprically) something. For example, if a paper claims something like "we show that using method X instead of Y doesn't improve the results", it won't get published on most journals... except this one, which is awesome, but the paper still has to prove that claim.
If you only publish the positive results, you miss the context of the unsurprising results. For example, in https://xkcd.com/882/ , if the results from all the experiments in the comic were published, the public would know that the "Green Jellybeans cause acne" result is probably a fluke.
Re: New academic journal only publishes 'unsurprising' research rejected by others
#9Null Hypothesis quarterly needs to be on every coffee table.
Re: New academic journal only publishes 'unsurprising' research rejected by others
#10I like the idea but I don't really get why they accept "statistically insignificant" results. What I expect from a scientific paper is to prove (even emprically) something. For example, if a paper claims something like "we show that using method X instead of Y doesn't improve the results", it won't get published on most journals... except this one, which is awesome, but the paper still has to prove that claim.
Doesn't "statistically insignificant" mean papers which conclude something like "we find no correlation between X and Y"?