Researcher's Perceptions on Publishing “Negative” Results and Open Access

Scientific advance is based on reproducibility, corroboration, and availability of research results. However, large numbers of experimental results that contradict previous work do not get published and many research results are not freely available as they are hidden behind paywalls. As part of COST Action “DARTER”, a network of researchers in the field of RNA therapeutics, we have performed a small survey among our members and their colleagues to assess their opinion on the subject of publishing contradictory or ambiguous results and their attitude to open access (OA) publishing. Our survey indicates that, although researchers highly value publication of “negative” results, they often do not publish their own, citing lack of time and the perception that those results may not be as highly cited. OA, on the other hand, seems to be widely accepted, but in many cases not actively sought by researchers due to higher costs associated with it.

• Publication year

  2020

• Venue

  Nucleic Acid Therapeutics

• Publication date

  2020-07-27

• Fields of study

  Medicine, Psychology

• Identifiers
  DOI 10.1089/nat.2020.0865PMID 32730128PMCID 8215407
• External record

  Open on Semantic Scholar

• Source metadata

  Semantic Scholar, PubMed

• No claims are published for this paper.

• No concepts are published for this paper.

• In praise of replication studies and null results

  2020cited by this paper
• Inexpensive Research in the Golden Open-Access Era.

  2018cited by this paper
• Rewarding negative results keeps science on track

  2017cited by this paper
• Negativity towards negative results: a discussion of the disconnect between scientific worth and scientific culture

  2014cited by this paper
• Replication studies: Bad copy

  2012cited by this paper
• Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries

  2011cited by this paper
• Do Pressures to Publish Increase Scientists' Bias? An Empirical Support from US States Data

  2010cited by this paper

• Reporting negative results – the strength of communicating findings

  2026cites this paper
• The IBEX knowledge-base a community resource enabling adoption and development of immunofluorescence imaging methods

  2026cites this paper
• The rationality guidance index: a framework for reducing redundancy in nanomedicine innovation.

  2025cites this paper
• Ending publication bias: A values-based approach to surface null and negative results

  2025cites this paper
• Experiments that fail

  2025cites this paper
• Research That Is Not Published Is Not Worth Doing

  2025cites this paper
• Exploring the role of large language models in the scientific method: from hypothesis to discovery

  2025cites this paper
• The Statistical Fragility of Randomized Controlled Trials in Kidney Stone Management: An Analysis of AUA and EAU Guidelines.

  2025cites this paper
• Advancing the Scientific Method with Large Language Models: From Hypothesis to Discovery

  2025cites this paper
• Evaluation of Spin in Clinical Trials of Mesenchymal Stromal Cells for the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review

  2025cites this paper
• Can available scientific information be mobilised to ensure the efficacy of microbial biocontrol agents against plant diseases in the field?

  2025cites this paper
• From large language models to AI agents in energy materials research: enabling discovery, design, and automation

  2025cites this paper
• Chronic obesity does not alter cancer incidence in Trp53R270H/+ mice

  2024cites this paper
• Exploring the scientific impact of negative results

  2024cites this paper
• An international, cross-sectional survey of preprint attitudes among biomedical researchers

  2024cites this paper
• Illuminating dark data: Advancing spinal cord medicine through reporting on “negative” data

  2024cites this paper
• Interpreting the Current Literature on Outcomes of Robotic-Assisted Versus Conventional Total Knee Arthroplasty Using Fragility Analysis: A Systematic Review and Cross-Sectional Study of Randomized Controlled Trials.

  2024cites this paper
• The Fragility of Statistical Findings in the Femoral Neck Fracture Literature: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

  2024cites this paper
• Understanding Anomalous Gas-Phase Peak Shifts in Dip-and-Pull Ambient Pressure XPS Experiments

  2024cites this paper
• The bioinformatics landscape in environmental omics: Lessons from a national ELIXIR survey

  2024cites this paper
• Circulating biomarkers in pulmonary arterial hypertension: State-of-the-art review and future directions

  2024cites this paper
• Designing Cyberinfrastructure for Knowledge Sharing

  2024cites this paper
• Data sharing and re‐use as a moral imperative in animal research

  2024cites this paper
• The IBEX Imaging Knowledge-Base: A Community Resource Enabling Adoption and Development of Immunofluoresence Imaging Methods

  2024cites this paper
• Molecular and functional changes in neutrophilic granulocytes induced by nicotine: a systematic review and critical evaluation

  2023cites this paper
• A cross-sectional analysis of publication of pediatric global health abstracts from seven major international conferences

  2023cites this paper
• Publishing Negative Results of Neurobiological Studies in Mental Disorders Will Advance Knowledge in Pathophysiology.

  2023cites this paper
• An International, Cross-Sectional Survey of Preprinting Attitudes Among Biomedical Researchers

  2023cites this paper
• Reframing the perception of outliers and negative data in translational research

  2022cites this paper
• Perception of Open Science in the Scientific Community of the Republic of Moldova

  2022cites this paper
• Reporting quality of abstracts of systematic reviews/meta-analyses: An appraisal of Arab Journal of Urology across 12 years: the PRISMA-Abstracts checklist

  2022cites this paper
• How to Make Sense out of 75,000 Mesenchymal Stromal Cell Publications?

  2022cites this paper
• A Systematic Review of Mobile-Assisted Language Learning Research Trends and Practices in Malaysia

  2022cites this paper
• Dissimulate or disseminate? A survey on the fate of negative results

  2022influential citation
• A longitudinal study of the evolution of opinions about open access and its main features: a twitter sentiment analysis

  2022cites this paper
• The Mongoose Phenomenon: A New Logical Heuristic

  2022cites this paper
• Mission of Science, and of the Nursing and Health Sciences Journal.

  2022cites this paper
• Choices of immediate open access and the relationship to journal ranking and publish-and-read deals

  2022cites this paper
• Perspectives on Negative Research Results in Pervasive Computing

  2022cites this paper
• Meeting report: oligonucleotide ADME workshop

  2022cites this paper
• Dissimuler ou disséminer ? Une étude sur le sort réservé aux résultats négatifs

  2021cites this paper
• Sharing “Negative” Results in Neuromuscular Research: A Positive Experience

  2021cites this paper