Editorial: Publishing "negative" results.

Abstract

After consultation with the Editorial Board of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education (BAMBEd), I am pleased to announce that effective immediately, we will be accepting for review an additional type of biochemistry and molecular biology education focused manuscript—those that demonstrate “negative” or inconclusive results. In the past, BAMBEd has generally been limited to manuscripts that presented a good idea, an appropriate protocol for delivery, and a careful assessment of the impact of that approach.1 This may be an inherently flawed idea. That is, by publishing only those papers that demonstrate successful results, people are rewarded/encouraged to try only “safe” experiments, that is, ones that build only incrementally and are likely to be successful. In the academy, people are often hired and promoted based on their research productivity. And, since a metric of that productivity is their volume of published work, we are de facto encouraging people to be “safe” in their choices, and perhaps also selecting against people who are inclined to invest themselves in truly innovative, high-risk, and potentially transformative projects. Publishing only “successful” protocols has another, perhaps more problematic, implication. That is, by not publishing well-researched projects that yield statistically insignificant or negative results, we may be allowing numerous people to try the same thing—after all, nowhere in the literature would they find evidence that the approach does not work. Please know that the BAMBEd Editorial Board has not and will not lower its standards for peer review and publication. We have always, and will always, expect all manuscripts to be well thought out, provide good and important insights, be carefully written, and include a thorough assessment.1 Until now, this has also meant that the assessment demonstrates that a pedagogical method is effective. The only difference is that we now also allow for manuscripts to demonstrate that a pedagogical method is not proven effective. As you consider this change, I encourage you to review two articles from the New York Times written by Aaron Carroll. In the first, “Congratulations. Your Study Went Nowhere.” note this statement, “Researchers should embrace negative results instead of accentuating the positive, which is one of several biases that can lead to bad science.2” And, in the second, “Congratulations on the Promotion. But Did Science Get a Demotion?”, note this statement, “Getting positive results, or successfully completing projects, can sometimes feel like the only way to achieve success in research careers. Just as those drivers can lead people to publish those results, it can also nudge them not to publish null ones.3” In addition, it is expected that including a wider range of manuscripts may allow for comparison of successful and unsuccessful attempts with similar techniques, which may allow for a better understanding of which parameters are critical. I believe that BAMBEd, as we declare ourselves open to publishing manuscripts that include well-designed and carefully assessed research that show positive and neutral or negative outcomes, is setting itself as an example of the value we place in creative and innovative thinking. There is no doubt in my mind that BAMBEd will continue to be an innovative leader in discipline-based research and academic publishing.