Nil nisi bene?
Markus K. Heinemann
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0044-1786979
2024-06-05
The Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeon
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
surgery,cardiac & cardiovascular systems,respiratory system