Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2017 Oct 15;27(3):030201.
doi: 10.11613/BM.2017.030201.

Dealing with the positive publication bias: Why you should really publish your negative results

Affiliations
Review

Dealing with the positive publication bias: Why you should really publish your negative results

Ana Mlinarić et al. Biochem Med (Zagreb). .

Abstract

Studies with positive results are greatly more represented in literature than studies with negative results, producing so-called publication bias. This review aims to discuss occurring problems around negative results and to emphasize the importance of reporting negative results. Underreporting of negative results introduces bias into meta-analysis, which consequently misinforms researchers, doctors and policymakers. More resources are potentially wasted on already disputed research that remains unpublished and therefore unavailable to the scientific community. Ethical obligations need to be considered when reporting results of studies on human subjects as people have exposed themselves to risk with the assurance that the study is performed to benefit others. Some studies disprove the common conception that journal editors preferably publish positive findings, which are considered as more citable. Therefore, all stakeholders, but especially researchers, need to be conscious of disseminating negative and positive findings alike.

Keywords: medical journals; negative results; publication bias; research integrity.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Potential conflict of interest: None declared.

References

    1. Duyx B, Urlings MJE, Swaen GHM, Bouter LM, Zeegers MP. Scientific Citations Favor Positive Results: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;88:92–101. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.06.002 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Jannot AS, Agoritsas T, Gayet-Ageron A, Perneger TV. Citation bias favouring statistically significant studies was present in medical research. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66:296–301. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.09.015 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Fanelli D. Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries. Scientometrics. 2012;90:891–904. 10.1007/s11192-011-0494-7 - DOI
    1. Blümle A, Schandelmaier S, Oeller P, Kasenda B, Briel M, von Elm E, et al. Premature Discontinuation of Prospective Clinical Studies Approved by a Research Ethics Committee – A Comparison of Randomised and Non-Randomised Studies. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0165605. 10.1371/journal.pone.0165605 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Sandercock P. Negative results: why do they need to be published? Int J Stroke. 2012;7:32–3. 10.1111/j.1747-4949.2011.00723.x - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources