Ending publication bias: A values-based approach to surface null and negative results

Sharing knowledge is a basic tenet of the scientific community, yet publication bias arising from the reluctance or inability to publish negative or null results remains a long-standing and deep-seated problem, albeit one that varies in severity between disciplines and study types. Recognizing that previous endeavors to address the issue have been fragmentary and largely unsuccessful, this Consensus View proposes concrete and concerted measures that major stakeholders can take to create and incentivize new pathways for publishing negative results. Funders, research institutions, publishers, learned societies, and the research community all have a role in making this an achievable norm that will buttress public trust in science.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
PLoS Biology
Published
2025-09-24
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3003368
Citations
4
Primary Topic
Academic Publishing and Open Access
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
16.68

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Ending publication bias: A values-based approach to surface null and negative results

Yensi Flores Bueso, Gina R. Poe, Malu Gámez Tansey, Needhi Bhalla et al.
4 citations
PLoS Biology
Academic Publishing and Open Access
16.68
article

Ending publication bias: A values-based approach to surface null and negative results

Yensi Flores Bueso, Gina R. Poe, Malu Gámez Tansey, Needhi Bhalla, P. Sriramarao, Laura N. Smith, Lauren von Klinggraeff, Kifayathullah Liakath‐Ali, Alexandra L. J. Freeman, Sarvenaz Sarabipour, Erick H. Turner, Stephen Curry, Neil Malhotra, Paul W. Sternberg, Dawn Bowers, Stefano Bertuzzi, Chris Chambers, Frances Weis‐Garcia, Mary Munson, Magali Haas, José G. Merino, Stefânia Forner, Jill L. Silverman, Gonzalo E. Torres, C. Glenn Begley, Michel Tuan Pham, Michael R. Dougherty, René Bernard, Rachel Miles, Darla P. Henderson, Edward Miguel, Rebecca Lawrence, Kanika Khanna, Geeta K. Swamy, Shinichi Nakagawa, Virginia Arechavala‐Gomeza, Robert Nobles, Christine Liu, C. Bernard, Ana María Ramírez, Samuel Brod, Eunice Mercado-Lara, Joy Owango
article en
4 citations

Abstract

Sharing knowledge is a basic tenet of the scientific community, yet publication bias arising from the reluctance or inability to publish negative or null results remains a long-standing and deep-seated problem, albeit one that varies in severity between disciplines and study types. Recognizing that previous endeavors to address the issue have been fragmentary and largely unsuccessful, this Consensus View proposes concrete and concerted measures that major stakeholders can take to create and incentivize new pathways for publishing negative results. Funders, research institutions, publishers, learned societies, and the research community all have a role in making this an achievable norm that will buttress public trust in science.

PLoS BiologyVol. 23(9)
Ikerbasque (ES), California Institute of Technology (US), Alzheimer's Association (US), University of Nairobi (KE), Allen Institute for Brain Science (US), Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (US), Gladstone Institutes (US), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (US), University of Connecticut (US), BioMed Central (United Kingdom) (GB), Emory University (US), University of Alberta (CA), Inserm (FR), University of California, Los Angeles (US), Oregon Health & Science University (US), University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School (US), Duke University (US), University of California, San Francisco (US), Georgetown University (US), Virginia Commonwealth University (US), University of California, Santa Cruz (US), Loyola University Chicago (US), University of Washington (US), Aix-Marseille Université (FR), University College Cork (IE), Georgetown University Medical Center (US), University of Florida Health (US), Oxford Biotherapeutics (United Kingdom) (GB), Augusta University Health (US), BioCruces Health research Institute (ES), Cohen Veterans Bioscience (US), Texas A&M Health Science Center (US), Institut de Neurosciences des Systèmes (FR), Office of Naval Research (GB), Taylor Wimpey (United Kingdom) (GB), Ridley College (AU), Center for Effective Global Action (US), OpenAI (United States) (US), University of Southampton (GB), Global Young Academy, Imperial College London (GB), American Society for Microbiology (US), University of Maryland, College Park (US), Columbia University (US), Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin (DE), Cardiff University (GB), University of California, Davis (US), Virginia Tech (US), Stanford University (US), Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (US)
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Eli Lilly and Company, Lilly Endowment, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
Openalex Percentile: Top 1%
Academic Publishing and Open Access
16.68
DOIOpen Access PDFOpenAlex
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.