Knowledge

Null result

Source đź“ť

90:
Many factors contribute to publication bias. For instance, once a scientific finding is well established, it may become newsworthy to publish reliable papers that fail to reject the null hypothesis. Most commonly, investigators simply decline to submit results, leading to
24:
is a result without the expected content: that is, the proposed result is absent. It is an experimental outcome which does not show an otherwise expected effect. This does not imply a result of zero or nothing, simply a result that does not support the
44:, i.e., the threshold set prior to testing for rejection of the null hypothesis. The significance level varies, but common choices include 0.10, 0.05, and 0.01. However, a non-significant result does not necessarily mean that an effect is absent. 83:, papers with statistically significant results are three times more likely to be published than those with null results. This unduly motivates researchers to manipulate their practices to ensure statistically significant results, such as by 95:. Investigators may also assume they made a mistake, find that the null result fails to support a known finding, lose interest in the topic, or anticipate that others will be uninterested in the null results. 67:. The experiment did appear to measure a non-zero "drift", but the value was far too small to account for the theoretically expected results; it is generally thought to be inside the 641:
Luijendijk, HJ; Koolman, X (May 2012). "The incentive to publish negative studies: how beta-blockers and depression got stuck in the publication cycle".
694: 437: 111: 103: 173:
Giunti, C.; et al. (1999). "New ordering principle for the classical statistical analysis of Poisson processes with background".
986: 982: 1032: 990: 978: 687: 1153: 1069: 934: 98:
There are several scientific journals dedicated to the publication of negative or null results, including the following:
904: 36:, a null result occurs when an experimental result is not significantly different from what is to be expected under the 312:"Testing What Matters (If You Must Test at All): A Context-Driven Approach to Substantive and Statistical Significance" 680: 237: 1191: 52: 998: 1213: 1036: 758: 33: 1218: 1184: 869: 118: 1163: 1127: 1099: 1028: 782: 1177: 853: 521: 972: 68: 910: 858: 738: 441: 956: 826: 804: 773: 748: 731: 1107: 944: 865: 948: 835: 743: 707: 80: 672: 438:"Role of the Michelson-Morley experiments in making determinations about competing theories" 914: 194: 8: 821: 753: 519:; Chan, S.; Chalmers, T. C.; et al. (1987). "Publication bias and clinical trials". 399: 350: 311: 148: 56: 55:
were of this type, as it did not detect the expected velocity relative to the postulated
198: 1074: 1024: 839: 768: 726: 498: 287: 254: 210: 184: 143: 64: 41: 1148: 1112: 1079: 1004: 926: 703: 658: 623: 538: 534: 490: 485: 466: 419: 380: 331: 292: 274: 233: 92: 502: 255:"Equivalence Tests: A Practical Primer for t Tests, Correlations, and Meta-Analyses" 214: 922: 843: 797: 792: 654: 650: 615: 574: 569: 557: 530: 480: 471: 411: 370: 362: 323: 282: 266: 202: 153: 1117: 940: 895: 175: 138: 37: 1143: 1064: 1016: 809: 721: 206: 126: 1207: 1122: 1089: 1084: 627: 516: 423: 384: 335: 278: 270: 84: 602:
Chopra, Felix; Haaland, Ingar; Roth, Christopher; Stegmann, Andreas (2023).
964: 848: 662: 296: 542: 494: 1012: 885: 875: 619: 590:
Publication bias in meta-analysis: prevention, assessment and adjustments
375: 59:. This experiment's famous failed detection, commonly referred to as the 465:
Easterbrook, P. J.; Berlin, J. A.; Gopalan, R.; Matthews, D. R. (1991).
960: 952: 918: 880: 787: 415: 366: 327: 189: 129:
also publishes negative results in the form of research or data notes.
26: 125:
While it is not exclusively dedicated to publishing negative results,
1020: 1008: 603: 1054: 40:; its probability (under the null hypothesis) does not exceed the 1059: 48: 17: 464: 562:
Reinvention: An International Journal of Undergraduate Research
702: 601: 588:
H. Rothstein, A. J. Sutton and M. Borenstein. (2005).
351:"An Equivalence Approach to Balance and Placebo Tests" 515: 640: 1205: 558:"Preliminary testing: The devil of statistics?" 348: 688: 582: 555: 460: 458: 227: 259:Social Psychological and Personality Science 695: 681: 592:. Wiley. Chichester, England; Hoboken, NJ. 455: 349:Hartman, Erin; Hidalgo, F. Daniel (2018). 112:Journal of Pharmaceutical Negative Results 104:Journal of Negative Results in Biomedicine 573: 484: 374: 286: 188: 79:Despite similar quality of execution and 987:Preventable fraction among the unexposed 983:Attributable fraction for the population 991:Preventable fraction for the population 979:Attributable fraction among the exposed 467:"Publication bias in clinical research" 228:Casella, George; Berger, Roger (2002). 1206: 397: 252: 232:(2nd ed.). Duxbury. p. 385. 172: 676: 404:American Journal of Political Science 355:American Journal of Political Science 316:American Journal of Political Science 309: 1154:Correlation does not imply causation 1070:Animal testing on non-human primates 63:, contributed to the development of 13: 74: 14: 1230: 400:"Arguing for a Negligible Effect" 634: 595: 549: 1037:Pre- and post-test probability 759:Patient and public involvement 655:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.06.022 575:10.31273/reinvention.v12i2.339 556:Pearce, J; Derrick, B (2019). 509: 430: 391: 342: 303: 246: 221: 166: 34:statistical hypothesis testing 1: 159: 119:Journal of Unsolved Questions 1164:Sex as a biological variable 535:10.1016/0197-2456(87)90155-3 486:10.1016/0140-6736(91)90201-Y 7: 1128:Intention-to-treat analysis 1100:Analysis of clinical trials 1029:Specificity and sensitivity 783:Randomized controlled trial 132: 53:Michelson–Morley experiment 10: 1235: 522:Controlled Clinical Trials 207:10.1103/PhysRevD.59.053001 1172: 1137:Interpretation of results 1136: 1098: 1047: 997: 971: 933: 903: 894: 870:Nested case–control study 820: 767: 714: 604:"The Null Result Penalty" 398:Rainey, Carlisle (2014). 310:Gross, Justin H. (2015). 71:level of the experiment. 739:Academic clinical trials 271:10.1177/1948550617697177 957:Relative risk reduction 805:Adaptive clinical trial 749:Evidence-based medicine 732:Adaptive clinical trial 253:Lakens, DaniĂ«l (2017). 945:Number needed to treat 1214:Design of experiments 949:Number needed to harm 836:Cross-sectional study 788:Scientific experiment 744:Clinical study design 230:Statistical Inference 51:, the results of the 1219:Logic and statistics 915:Cumulative incidence 608:The Economic Journal 822:Observational study 754:Real world evidence 708:experimental design 199:1999PhRvD..59e3001G 149:Noise (electronics) 57:luminiferous aether 1108:Risk–benefit ratio 1075:First-in-man study 1025:Case fatality rate 866:Case–control study 840:Longitudinal study 620:10.1093/ej/uead060 416:10.1111/ajps.12102 367:10.1111/ajps.12387 328:10.1111/ajps.12149 144:Imponderable fluid 127:BMC Research Notes 65:special relativity 42:significance level 1201: 1200: 1149:Survivorship bias 1113:Systematic review 1080:Multicenter trial 1043: 1042: 1033:Likelihood-ratios 1005:Clinical endpoint 973:Population impact 927:Period prevalence 704:Clinical research 479:(8746): 867–872. 93:non-response bias 47:As an example in 1226: 1048:Trial/test types 923:Point prevalence 901: 900: 844:Ecological study 827:EBM II-2 to II-3 798:Open-label trial 793:Blind experiment 769:Controlled study 697: 690: 683: 674: 673: 667: 666: 643:J Clin Epidemiol 638: 632: 631: 614:(657): 193–219. 599: 593: 586: 580: 579: 577: 553: 547: 546: 513: 507: 506: 488: 462: 453: 452: 450: 449: 440:. Archived from 434: 428: 427: 410:(4): 1083–1091. 395: 389: 388: 378: 361:(4): 1000–1013. 346: 340: 339: 307: 301: 300: 290: 250: 244: 243: 225: 219: 218: 192: 170: 154:Publication bias 1234: 1233: 1229: 1228: 1227: 1225: 1224: 1223: 1204: 1203: 1202: 1197: 1168: 1132: 1094: 1039: 993: 967: 941:Risk difference 929: 890: 824: 816: 771: 763: 727:Trial protocols 710: 701: 671: 670: 639: 635: 600: 596: 587: 583: 554: 550: 514: 510: 463: 456: 447: 445: 436: 435: 431: 396: 392: 347: 343: 308: 304: 251: 247: 240: 226: 222: 171: 167: 162: 139:Aether theories 135: 77: 75:Publishing bias 38:null hypothesis 12: 11: 5: 1232: 1222: 1221: 1216: 1199: 1198: 1196: 1195: 1192:List of topics 1188: 1181: 1173: 1170: 1169: 1167: 1166: 1161: 1156: 1151: 1146: 1144:Selection bias 1140: 1138: 1134: 1133: 1131: 1130: 1125: 1120: 1115: 1110: 1104: 1102: 1096: 1095: 1093: 1092: 1087: 1082: 1077: 1072: 1067: 1065:Animal testing 1062: 1057: 1051: 1049: 1045: 1044: 1041: 1040: 1017:Mortality rate 1003: 1001: 995: 994: 977: 975: 969: 968: 939: 937: 931: 930: 909: 907: 898: 892: 891: 889: 888: 883: 878: 873: 863: 862: 861: 856: 846: 832: 830: 818: 817: 815: 814: 813: 812: 810:Platform trial 802: 801: 800: 795: 790: 779: 777: 765: 764: 762: 761: 756: 751: 746: 741: 736: 735: 734: 729: 722:Clinical trial 718: 716: 712: 711: 700: 699: 692: 685: 677: 669: 668: 633: 594: 581: 548: 529:(4): 343–353. 508: 454: 429: 390: 341: 322:(3): 775–788. 302: 265:(4): 355–362. 245: 238: 220: 190:hep-ph/9808240 164: 163: 161: 158: 157: 156: 151: 146: 141: 134: 131: 123: 122: 115: 108: 76: 73: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 1231: 1220: 1217: 1215: 1212: 1211: 1209: 1194: 1193: 1189: 1187: 1186: 1182: 1180: 1179: 1175: 1174: 1171: 1165: 1162: 1160: 1157: 1155: 1152: 1150: 1147: 1145: 1142: 1141: 1139: 1135: 1129: 1126: 1124: 1123:Meta-analysis 1121: 1119: 1116: 1114: 1111: 1109: 1106: 1105: 1103: 1101: 1097: 1091: 1090:Vaccine trial 1088: 1086: 1085:Seeding trial 1083: 1081: 1078: 1076: 1073: 1071: 1068: 1066: 1063: 1061: 1058: 1056: 1053: 1052: 1050: 1046: 1038: 1034: 1030: 1026: 1022: 1018: 1014: 1010: 1006: 1002: 1000: 996: 992: 988: 984: 980: 976: 974: 970: 966: 962: 958: 954: 950: 946: 942: 938: 936: 932: 928: 924: 920: 916: 912: 908: 906: 902: 899: 897: 893: 887: 884: 882: 879: 877: 874: 871: 867: 864: 860: 857: 855: 854:Retrospective 852: 851: 850: 847: 845: 841: 837: 834: 833: 831: 828: 823: 819: 811: 808: 807: 806: 803: 799: 796: 794: 791: 789: 786: 785: 784: 781: 780: 778: 775: 774:EBM I to II-1 770: 766: 760: 757: 755: 752: 750: 747: 745: 742: 740: 737: 733: 730: 728: 725: 724: 723: 720: 719: 717: 713: 709: 705: 698: 693: 691: 686: 684: 679: 678: 675: 664: 660: 656: 652: 649:(5): 488–92. 648: 644: 637: 629: 625: 621: 617: 613: 609: 605: 598: 591: 585: 576: 571: 567: 563: 559: 552: 544: 540: 536: 532: 528: 524: 523: 518: 517:Dickersin, K. 512: 504: 500: 496: 492: 487: 482: 478: 474: 473: 468: 461: 459: 444:on 2012-11-07 443: 439: 433: 425: 421: 417: 413: 409: 405: 401: 394: 386: 382: 377: 376:1721.1/126115 372: 368: 364: 360: 356: 352: 345: 337: 333: 329: 325: 321: 317: 313: 306: 298: 294: 289: 284: 280: 276: 272: 268: 264: 260: 256: 249: 241: 239:0-534-24312-6 235: 231: 224: 216: 212: 208: 204: 200: 196: 191: 186: 183:(5): 053001. 182: 178: 177: 169: 165: 155: 152: 150: 147: 145: 142: 140: 137: 136: 130: 128: 121: 120: 116: 114: 113: 109: 106: 105: 101: 100: 99: 96: 94: 88: 86: 85:data dredging 82: 72: 70: 66: 62: 58: 54: 50: 45: 43: 39: 35: 30: 28: 23: 19: 1190: 1183: 1176: 1158: 965:Hazard ratio 849:Cohort study 646: 642: 636: 611: 607: 597: 589: 584: 565: 561: 551: 526: 520: 511: 476: 470: 446:. Retrieved 442:the original 432: 407: 403: 393: 358: 354: 344: 319: 315: 305: 262: 258: 248: 229: 223: 180: 176:Phys. Rev. D 174: 168: 124: 117: 110: 102: 97: 89: 78: 60: 46: 31: 21: 15: 1159:Null result 1118:Replication 1013:Infectivity 935:Association 886:Case report 876:Case series 859:Prospective 61:null result 22:null result 1208:Categories 961:Odds ratio 953:Risk ratio 919:Prevalence 905:Occurrence 881:Case study 448:2003-07-17 160:References 27:hypothesis 1021:Morbidity 1009:Virulence 911:Incidence 628:0013-0133 424:0092-5853 385:0092-5853 336:0092-5853 279:1948-5506 107:(defunct) 1185:Glossary 1178:Category 1055:In vitro 896:Measures 715:Overview 663:22342262 503:36570135 297:28736600 215:14948954 133:See also 1060:In vivo 543:3442991 495:1672966 288:5502906 195:Bibcode 49:physics 18:science 661:  626:  541:  501:  493:  472:Lancet 422:  383:  334:  295:  285:  277:  236:  213:  81:design 999:Other 568:(2). 499:S2CID 211:S2CID 185:arXiv 69:noise 838:vs. 706:and 659:PMID 624:ISSN 539:PMID 491:PMID 420:ISSN 381:ISSN 332:ISSN 293:PMID 275:ISSN 234:ISBN 20:, a 651:doi 616:doi 612:134 570:doi 531:doi 481:doi 477:337 412:doi 371:hdl 363:doi 324:doi 283:PMC 267:doi 203:doi 32:In 16:In 1210:: 1035:, 1031:, 1027:, 1023:, 1019:, 1015:, 1011:, 1007:, 989:, 985:, 981:, 963:, 959:, 955:, 951:, 947:, 943:, 925:, 921:, 917:, 913:, 842:, 657:. 647:65 645:. 622:. 610:. 606:. 566:12 564:. 560:. 537:. 525:. 497:. 489:. 475:. 469:. 457:^ 418:. 408:58 406:. 402:. 379:. 369:. 359:62 357:. 353:. 330:. 320:59 318:. 314:. 291:. 281:. 273:. 261:. 257:. 209:. 201:. 193:. 181:59 179:. 87:. 29:. 872:) 868:( 829:) 825:( 776:) 772:( 696:e 689:t 682:v 665:. 653:: 630:. 618:: 578:. 572:: 545:. 533:: 527:8 505:. 483:: 451:. 426:. 414:: 387:. 373:: 365:: 338:. 326:: 299:. 269:: 263:8 242:. 217:. 205:: 197:: 187::

Index

science
hypothesis
statistical hypothesis testing
null hypothesis
significance level
physics
Michelson–Morley experiment
luminiferous aether
special relativity
noise
design
data dredging
non-response bias
Journal of Negative Results in Biomedicine
Journal of Pharmaceutical Negative Results
Journal of Unsolved Questions
BMC Research Notes
Aether theories
Imponderable fluid
Noise (electronics)
Publication bias
Phys. Rev. D
arXiv
hep-ph/9808240
Bibcode
1999PhRvD..59e3001G
doi
10.1103/PhysRevD.59.053001
S2CID
14948954

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

↑