Abstract:Do not worry: this is not another obituary. " Nothing but good " in this piece does not refer to corpses but scientific publishing. Mind the question mark! In 2012, my days as a rookie editor, I was approached by an eminent senior scientist concerning a study which had investigated gender differences in the incidence of a major postoperative adverse cardiac event. At that time we had just published a special issue edited by the society's working group on gender medicine, and thus the enquiry seemed more than apt. As it turned out, the author's worry was that the study had revealed no difference. I blamed my inexperience for not seeing any problem and encouraged submission. One of the reviewers remarked that "The "negative" data are convincing and substantiated by the high number of samples," there was one revision, and the paper was published without further ado. Over the next 10 years it was regularly cited, 15 times all in all so far. The apprehensions of the reputable colleague worried me and I tried to understand his trains of thought better. Experienced editors explained to me that in our community only positive messages sold, ambiguity was considered as carelessness, and negative findings signaled failure. In consequence, many journals were definitely hesitant to accept anything but affirmative results. In my naivety I wondered if keeping quiet about an alleged misfortune would not lead others to repeat the same mistake. Apparently, I was not alone. During this period a whole bunch of journals appeared on the market, specifically aiming at "negative results."[1] [2] [3] [4] The advent of Open Access had enabled publishers to create virtual journals at a low budget, and comparatively affordable APCs made them attractive. Of note, these publications had nothing to do with the flood of predatory journals also competing for frustrated authors. A different model, followed by several publishers, established specific platforms and collections.[5] [6] [7] After an expected initial boost, most subsided one by one with a few remaining. It can be assumed that authors had reservations about their work being published in a journal calling itself "negative" and thus perhaps provoking a less than favorable reception by the readers—if there were any readers at all. The topic, however, remains of interest. This is shown by the recent announcement by Elisabeth Bik, famous for hunting duplicate images, who once again summed up the importance of the issue and supported the launch of another open access platform in her own field, microbiology.[8] [9] In theory, the scientific community meanwhile wholeheartedly supports the publication of negative results.[10] [11] [12] As so often, however, the devil is in the details. A study published in the Journal of Informetrics confirmed what authors are still afraid of: " views, readership, and export/save counts of negative result papers were significantly lower than those of positive result papers." [13] And when they were cited, there were significantly more negative connotations. As perspectives do matter, I leave it to you to decide if these results of a meticulous analysis are to be classified as negative or positive. Article published online: 03 June 2024 © 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

Illuminating dark data: Advancing spinal cord medicine through reporting on "negative" data

Negative equity - the value of reporting negative results

Illuminating 'the ugly side of science': fresh incentives for reporting negative results

Why (and how) we should publish negative data

Diversity and inclusion: A hidden additional benefit of Open Data

A critical scientific evaluation of a purportedly negative data report – response to Seneviratne et al. 2022

Dark Data in Real-World Evidence: Challenges, Implications, and the Imperative of Data Literacy in Medical Research

Can Data Sharing Become the Path of Least Resistance?

FAIR SCI Ahead: The Evolution of the Open Data Commons for Pre-Clinical Spinal Cord Injury Research

Positive thinking about negative studies

Open science challenges, benefits and tips in early career and beyond

Nil nisi bene?

Research on Stem Cell Therapy for Spinal Cord Injury: a Bibliometric and Visual Analysis from 2018–2023

Data sharing: A new editorial initiative of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors

Animal researchers' views on the publication of negative results and subsequent policy adoptions

Annals of photodynamic therapy: Publish and/or perish?

High impact journal publishing: the devil is in the detail!

Evaluation of Data Sharing After Implementation of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Data Sharing Statement Requirement

Data sharing practices across knowledge domains: A dynamic examination of data availability statements in PLOS ONE publications

Disparities in Global Authorship and Data Source in the Pediatric Blood and Cancer Journal 2011–2021: Realities and Strategies for Improvement

Data availability, reusability, and analytic reproducibility: evaluating the impact of a mandatory open data policy at the journal Cognition