Redefining Scientific Success: How Null Results Foster Open Research
Authors
-
Nelson Santiago Vispo
Clinical Biotec SL. and Bionatura Journal. Madrid. 28029. Spain. Member of the Scientific Board, Bionatura Journal (role declared for transparency only).
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4081-3984
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.70099/BJ/2025.02.03.1Keywords:
null findings, negative data reporting, publication bias, scientific transparency, reproducible research, open science practices, research ethics, meta-research, file drawer effect, scientific publishing reformAbstract
A large number of studies that do not validate an a priori hypothesis or report statistically nonsignificant findings are absent from the published scientific literature. This long-standing absence creates publication bias, distorts meta-analyses, and results in the wasteful use of research resources. In this editorial, BioNatura Journal introduces a special editorial policy and submission track for methodologically sound studies reporting null or negative findings. In conformance with the values of open science, reproducibility, and transparency, this effort seeks to normalize the publication of results that are methodologically sound yet typically overlooked. The publication of null results encourages a more ethical, comprehensive, and cumulative approach to scientific advancement.
References
1. Franco A, Malhotra N, Simonovits G. Publication bias in the social sciences: unlocking the file drawer. Science. 2014;345(6203):1502–5.
2. Fanelli D. Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries. Nat Hum Behav. 2018;2(9):720–728. doi:10.1038/s41562-018-0411-0
3. Open Science Collaboration. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science. 2015;349(6251):aac4716.
4. Koçak B, Bulut E, Bayrak ON, et al. Negative results in radiomics research (NEVER): a meta-research study. Eur J Radiol. 2023;163:110830.
5. PLOS ONE. What we publish [Internet]. [cited 2025 Jul 30]. Available from: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/what-we-publish
6. Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet. 2009;374(9683):86–9.
7. eLife. Peer review policy [Internet]. [cited 2025 Jul 30]. Available from: https://elifesciences.org/about/peer-review
8. Nallamothu BK, Schultz JS, Petty SJ. True negatives. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2020;13:e007448.
9. Page MJ, et al. Bias due to selective inclusion and reporting of outcomes and analyses in systematic reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;11:MR000039.
10. Chambers C. The seven deadly sins of psychology. Princeton University Press; 2017.
11. Springer Nature. The state of null results: a white paper [Internet]. 2025 [cited 2025 Jul 30]. Available from: https://stories.springernature.com/the-state-of-null-results-white-paper
Published
How to Cite
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with BioNatura Journal agree to the following terms: Authors retain copyright and grant the BioNatura Institutional Publishing Consortium (BIPC) right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). This allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
