A few months ago, we announced a grace period to submit your negative results papers for free until the end of August. The news spread far and wide, and we’ve had amazing feedback. Many of you were relieved to know that there *is* a home for negative results, and you agreed with us that all research needs to be published – not just groundbreaking positive results.
It took a while for the word to spread, and many of you didn’t hear about our campaign until June or July. We heard from several people that they have negative results in their lab notebooks, but they needed a bit more time to format it as a paper. In light of this, and because we’ve been encouraged by your enthusiasm, we’re extending the period during which we’re waiving the article processing fee on negative results papers by one month. You now have until September 30th to publish negative results at no cost. Mention code NR13 when submitting your negative results paper within this time period to avoid being charged.
After that, we’re of course still keen to receive your negative results papers, but you will have to pay the regular article processing charges, so this is your chance to get your backlog of negative results published free of charge!
A few of the responses to our negative results announcement:
A group of MBA students at Georgetown, McDonough School of Business featured F1000Research as part of a project looking at the publication of negative results in science. They’re looking into the possibilities of setting up an online discussion forum to talk about negative results, and all their interviews and notes are on their blog.
Nik Papageorgiou was inspired by our Twitter theme week, and drew a cartoon about negative results, which quickly went viral.
In his post, Drugmonkey described a common scenario from the field of drug research:
“So the curious person might ask, how much has been tried? How many curious grad students or even postdocs have “just tried [to see if rodents will self-administer THC]” for a few months or a year? How many have done the most obvious manipulations and failed? How many have been told to give it up as a bad lot by older and wiser PIs (who tried to get THC self-administration going themselves back 20 years ago)?
I’m here to tell you that it has been attempted a lot more than has been published.”