5 Comments
Apr 12·edited Apr 12Liked by Judith A Hubbard

Thank you for this invaluable and lucid analysis. You write, "Academic publishing is particularly susceptible to confirmation bias, because no journal wants to waste its valuable (digital) ink reporting negative results." Reporting negative results is an essential and honorable undertaking. I would not blame the journals for its absence, but rather us authors.

Expand full comment
author

Or maybe both? Many authors (especially early-career scientists) are under a lot of pressure and can't really afford to take a lot of risks, or spend a lot of time on things that won't obviously deliver publications or citations. But, I agree that reporting (and reading!) negative results is critical to the field. We'll need to shake up the system if we want it to happen.

Expand full comment
Apr 18·edited Apr 19

I'd argue that the accomplishment in this series hadn't been done before because it is very hard to do, rather than because no will do negative studies. It would be useful if it could be consolidated with an associated methods section, supplements, references to these chapters, and summarized in an article demonstrating the general conclusions in Reviews of Geophysics or the like.

Or maybe only having it here drives more people to this quality blog.

Expand full comment
Apr 12Liked by Judith A Hubbard

Another excellent chapter!

Expand full comment
Apr 12Liked by Judith A Hubbard

Admirably thorough presentation and well written.

Expand full comment