[sc-announce] BioMed Central’s smart push to publish “negative data” -- Science Commons blog
Donna Wentworth
dwentworth at creativecommons.org
Thu Mar 13 17:01:24 EDT 2008
BioMed Central's smart push to publish "negative data"
March 13th, 2008<http://sciencecommons.org/weblog/archives/2008/03/13/biomed-centrals-smart-push-to-publish-negative-data/>by
dwentworth
BioMed Central <http://www.biomedcentral.com/> — a champion among open
access <http://www.earlham.edu/%7Epeters/fos/overview.htm> publishers — has
just announced the
launch<http://blogs.openaccesscentral.com/blogs/bmcblog/entry/bmc_research_notes_will_free>of
BMC
Research Notes <http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmcresnotes/>, a new journal
that aims to complete the scientific record by publishing so-called dark
data <http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/magazine/15-10/st_essay>.
That includes information about failed experiments, "disappointing"
follow-up results and findings that traditional publishers deem
scientifically sound but not headline-worthy.
Why would we want to publish these kinds of materials? As the announcement
explains:
Small studies and confirmatory studies produce a valuable body of work -
most science progresses by small advances rather than headline
breakthroughs. Replication of results is essential and these studies are
included in meta-analyses and systematic reviews. If the results of a study
confirm what is already known or a new method or software tool offers an
alternative approach rather than a major advance then we want authors to
state this rather than being tempted to make exaggerated claims. Negative
results may seem disappointing, but support for the null hypothesis is
important and publishing such studies is essential to avoid publication
bias.
This is a very smart move, and a brilliant demonstration of why we need to
make the leap beyond the traditional publishing model: it isn't serving the
progress of science. We can't move forward if we continue to use a model
that systematically forces scientists to double back, re-explore blind
alleys and repeat one another's work.
Bravo to BioMed for continuing to make the case for publishing that makes
sense for science.
(If you'd like to read more about BioMed Central publications, here's our
post on BMC Proceedings,<http://sciencecommons.org/weblog/archives/2007/12/07/introducing-bmc-proceedings/>where
we first took note of BMC Research Notes.)
................
Donna Wentworth
Communications Specialist
Science Commons
http://sciencecommons.org
dwentworth at creativecommons.org <kaitlin at creativecommons.org>
................
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/sc-announce/attachments/20080313/3201c9a3/attachment.htm
More information about the sc-announce
mailing list