I’m not a doctor, and I’m not a researcher in any field, but I do recall reading plenty of null studies when I had access to the catalogs.
Are publishers only publishing positive stories now?
Comment on I have attempted science.
GCostanzaStepOnMe@feddit.de 1 year ago
Lmao have fun publishing that kiddo
peopleproblems@lemmy.world 1 year ago
ZoopZeZoop@lemmy.world 1 year ago
In my field they do publish results without success, but it must either be (a) something seminal in the field or (b) interesting in a notable way. General things aren’t going to have the juice to get through the review process. One exception to this is the shotgun method. If you’re testing a bunch of different things that get at the same question and they all miss, you might still get published, but that’s because it’s adjacent to (b).
ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world 1 year ago
It’s actually a published problem 😅
Cortell@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Null results are results too 🥲
baseless_discourse@mander.xyz 1 year ago
I had such a hard time explaining to my family why I was working on a project for two years, and ends up with nothing publishable…
Everyone can be wrong, solving problems is what my field is looking for (I m not sure if that is fortunate or unfortunate).
LemmysMum@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Which is stupid. Everyone can be wrong because we haven’t been wrong enough times to be right. How many people have to be wrong the same way before we benefit from the paths they re-tread?
tdawg@lemmy.world 1 year ago
You didn’t spend 2 years failing. You spent 2 years learning
Femcowboy@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Most research is funded by private corporations looking to make their money back then some. Two years of not being right is usually worse for having a sustainable career than just bsing that you’re right. Case study: Alzheimer’s research.