What changes would you make to the current publishing system?

[victorxstc]

Maybe we'd have less cheating (as there seems to be a great deal of discussion around this lately) if an article could be published if the results weren't significant. ... True science looks at failures too (IMHO).

But as far as I have seen, the journals do publish non-significant research results, once the test power is appropriate. In my field, some journals don't know (or care) about test power too, and are likely to publish non-significant results without asking for power!

[duskstar]

But as far as I have seen, the journals do publish non-significant research results, once the test power is appropriate. In my field, some journals don't know (or care) about test power too, and are likely to publish non-significant results without asking for power!

I know a lot of journals claim to publish NS results, but they don't really. BMJ Open took one of mine recently which was non-significant (obviously only useful for people in the medical area!), they are keen to publish stuff that isn't "exciting" but does need to be published, which described my work well. Ironically it got a lot of media interest!

[victorxstc]

I know a lot of journals claim to publish NS results, but they don't really. BMJ Open took one of mine recently which was non-significant (obviously only useful for people in the medical area!), they are keen to publish stuff that isn't "exciting" but does need to be published, which described my work well. Ironically it got a lot of media interest!

They have published my non-significant articles too, maybe many papers of mine are non-significant. Some specific journals in my field (dentistry) are heavily biased to publish "exciting" articles only, but most of them also publish non-exciting things as far as the test power is good. Even some of them haven't cared about test power when my result was nonsignnificant.

By the way, good for you by publishing something newsworthy. what was you research that drew media attention? can you kindly give a link? However, I didn't quite understand whether you agreed that they do publish nonsignificant findings or disagreed.

[duskstar]

I honestly don't know whether they do or don't publish non-significant results as much as they should. I've been to so many talks over the years about publication bias. I wonder how much of an issue it is and whether some fields have it more than others. I work in medical research so if you show that something doesn't significantly improve, then I wonder if it isnt always viewed as "exciting" and I think it can be hard to publish those results (even though they are important too).

Having said all this the research which I had which attracted some media attention was this and I guess the general message of the whole thing was that not much had changed (which in itself, was quite interesting).

[victorxstc]

Nice study although I haven't read it yet except the conclusion congratulations
Talking about rates of accepting papers, I can tell that as you better know, they have a list of criteria and give scores to studies. A study can be confirmatory or be nonsignificant but the sample size, or the text might be so good (as well as other factors such as the importance of that topic at current time etc.) that they accept it. Besides, sometimes nonsigniifcant is what is better, for example efficacy of dental implants should not be significantly weaker than teeth. So a nonsignificant result (if the power is good) is more exciting here.

[duskstar]

Besides, sometimes nonsigniifcant is what is better, for example efficacy of dental implants should not be significantly weaker than teeth. So a nonsignificant result (if the power is good) is more exciting here.

That is very true