Scientific Publishing: Beyond Materialism, Neophilia, and Theorrhea

The scientific community is faced with the challenge of growing beyond certain philosophical assumptions and biases that have hindered the integrity of research and publication. Key among these are the assumptions of materialism and scientism, the cognitive bias favoring positive results, and the underreporting of negative findings. This article explores these issues and suggests ways to address them, promoting a more rigorous and transparent scientific process.

The Philosophical Assumptions of Materialism and Scientism

Materialism and scientism are deeply ingrained in the scientific method, which posits that only physical substances and measurable phenomena exist and that scientific methodology is the most reliable way to understand the world. While these assumptions have contributed significantly to the advancement of science, they can also limit the scope of inquiry and restrict the kind of knowledge that is pursued and published. For instance, materialism often neglects the role of qualitative and experiential aspects of phenomena, while scientism can lead to an overemphasis on quantitative measures at the expense of qualitative insights.

Publication Bias and the Exclusion of Negative Results

Publication bias, the tendency to publish positive rather than negative results, is a long-standing and pervasive issue in scientific research. For over six decades, this bias has meant that negative results remain hidden, effectively becoming the 'dark matter' of scientific research. Negative results, which do not support a hypothesis, are often not published or are published in low-impact journals, leading to a skewed representation of the scientific landscape. This bias is the opposite of the ideal of science, where papers are judged by the quality of the questions, the methods, and the soundness of the analysis, not merely the results themselves.

Consequences of Underreporting Negative Results

The underreporting of negative results can lead to unnecessary repetitions of experiments and can skew the support for a hypothesis, allowing spurious results to remain unchallenged. This can be particularly problematic in fields like the biomedical sciences, where the benefits of a treatment might be exaggerated. Researchers sometimes use a technique known as p-hacking, where they test multiple hypotheses until a statistically significant but nonsensical result is achieved. This can lead to the overestimation of the effectiveness of treatments.

Addressing the Issue: New Initiatives and Practices

To address the issue of underreporting negative results, several new initiatives and practices have been introduced. One such initiative is the pre-registration of studies or clinical trials before data collection. This ensures that the trial is planned rationally and helps prevent the kind of data manipulation that leads to publication bias. Additionally, new journals are being established to publish negative results, which can enhance the overall quality and representativeness of scientific discourse.

Other notable initiatives include research prizes that specifically reward negative findings. For example, the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology offers a prize of €10,000 (approximately US $11,800) for negative results in preclinical neuroscience. Similarly, the international Organization for Human Brain Mapping awards US $2,000 for the best replication study, whether successful or not, with implications for human neuroimaging. These initiatives aim to acknowledge the true importance of negative findings and reduce the burden on young academics to produce positive results at all costs.

The Future of Scientific Publishing

While significant strides are being made to address the issues of publication bias and the underreporting of negative results, there is still a long way to go. As these new initiatives gain traction, the expectation is that the true importance of negative findings will be more widely acknowledged. This shift could help to create a more robust and transparent scientific community, where the quality and rigour of research are not compromised by the pressure to produce positive results. By fostering an environment that values all types of scientific findings, we can ensure that scientific progress is both accurate and comprehensive.

", "snippet": "In scientific research, underreporting negative results contributes to publication bias, making the true importance of all findings undervalued. New initiatives such as pre-registration of studies, new journals for negative results, and research prizes for unsuccessful findings are addressing this issue. This article discusses how these practices can help restore balance to the scientific landscape, acknowledging the value of all data.