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.
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).
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.
Advertise on Talk Stats