Some research stories end with a triumphant “Eureka!”, but many more end with a quiet “...well, that didn’t work.” Those quiet endings are often excluded from the scientific record. This week’s Researcher Riddle dives into the surprisingly high‑stakes world of negative results. The experiments that failed, the hypotheses that didn’t hold, and the data that never sees the light of day. When these results disappear into the proverbial file drawer, the consequences ripple far beyond a single project.
Negative or null findings are a normal, healthy part of science. But selective reporting, publication bias, and long-term file‑drawer practices distort the evidence base, waste resources, and can even mislead entire research fields. In extreme cases, intentionally withholding results that contradict a hypothesis, support a competitor, or “don’t look good” could be considered a breach of research ethics. Journals increasingly recognise this, which is why journals with policies to publish all sound science, represented at Springer Nature by the Discover and BMC journals (especially BMC Research Notes) as well as individual journals like Scientific Reports and others, actively welcome well‑designed studies regardless of outcome.
How would you handle a situation where your research didn’t quite go as you expected? Let’s explore this with the following scenario.
You’ve spent months testing a promising intervention. The study was well‑designed, preregistered, and carefully executed. Unfortunately, the results ended up being null. No effect. Not even a hint of one. You worry the findings will be hard to publish, and you’re already behind on other projects. What do you do?
- A: Submit a manuscript anyway. The study was rigorous, and null results still contribute to the evidence base.
- B: Skip publication for now and move on; the results aren’t “useful,” and journals probably won’t accept them.
- C: Re‑run the analysis until you find something statistically significant to justify a publication.
- D: Mention the null results briefly in a future paper but avoid writing a full manuscript.
[image description: a magnifying glass zooming in on the word “Results”]
The correct answer is A! This is the most ethically sound choice. A well‑designed study with null results is still valid science, and publishing it helps reduce publication bias, supports meta‑analyses, and prevents other researchers from unknowingly repeating the same work. As mentioned, many inclusive journals explicitly encourage the submission of methodologically robust studies regardless of outcome.
Now let's discuss why the other choices, as convenient as they may be, are not the right course of action to take.
B: Skipping the publication might feel practical, but it contributes to potentially useful negative results remaining unpublished. Withholding results because they aren’t “exciting” undermines transparency and can distort the scientific record.
C: Re-running the analysis is a potential breach of research integrity. Data dredging, p‑hacking, or selectively reporting only significant outcomes is a form of questionable research practice, and in some contexts, it can constitute misconduct.
D: Mentioning the null hypothesis in a future paper still hides essential information. A passing mention of null results without full reporting prevents others from evaluating the study design, methods, and implications. Partial disclosure is not a substitute for transparent publication.
Negative results deserve a place in the scientific conversation. If you’re sitting on unpublished null findings, consider submitting them to journals committed to transparency and methodological soundness, such as those mentioned earlier with all sound science policies (e.g. BMC Research Notes, Discover)
To deepen your understanding of responsible reporting, explore our integrity training materials including courses on research ethics and introduction to research integrity. Your next “non‑result” might be exactly the result your research community needs.