Null But Not Void: Negative Results Are Not Failures!

TRANSPARENCY AND QUALITY ASSURANCE

Negative results counterbalance the risk of false positives, increasing transparency and ensuring that the scientific community has a complete picture of the evidence base. Unpublished negative data create research gaps, skewing meta-analyses, and systematic reviews while inadvertently validating ineffective practices. Publishing null results add rigour to research by identifying potential biases, inspiring better-designed studies, and improving reproducibility.

ROAD TO FUTURE RESEARCH

Negative results help to frame new research questions and stimulate further exploration. The research question, which is unanswered, inspires alternative hypotheses and encourages innovation. If critical appraisal of the study points to faulty study design, we can plan for better design by ironing out the faults and refining the methodology and protocol.

WHAT PREVENTS PUBLISHING NEGATIVE RESULTS?

Despite their importance, negative results often face significant obstacles to publication. In one article, the authors stated, ‘We have become so accustomed to celebrating successes in science that we forget the crucial role of “failures” in advancing a field.’^[2] Researchers may hesitate to submit such work due to concerns over career impact and institutional resistance.

1. Misconceptions such as ‘negative results are less likely to be accepted’ or ‘the journals favour positive findings,’ etc., persist despite evidence to the contrary. Many journals explicitly declare that they accept research with negative results. [e.g., British Medical Journal (BMJ)^[3] ‘We welcome studies — even with “negative” results — as long as their research questions are important, new, and relevant to general readers and their designs are appropriate and robust’]. In other science fields also, many journals accept research with negative results; e.g., PLOS ONE, Journal of Negative Results in Biomedicine, Journal of Pharmaceutical Negative Results, BMC Results Notes, etc.

2. Funding agencies and academic institutions inadvertently contribute to this bias. The incentive to publish null findings diminishes if grants are awarded only to research with positive results.

3. The research with negative conclusions is less likely to be cited in other journals. This results in decreasing the H index or citation metrics of the researcher.

Addressing these systemic issues is a key to normalising the publication of negative results. To combat the under-representation of negative results in surgical and scientific literature, we propose the following:

1. Creating awareness: The value of negative results should be appreciated by creating awareness of its value by journals, funding agencies, and academic institutions. The young researchers and postgraduate students should be particularly targeted and educated in this regard. It should be emphasised that negative results are not failures.

2. The funding agencies should explicitly announce that funding will still be provided even if the results are negative and encourage the publication of all research, positive or negative.

3. The journals should also announce that they accept and publish negative results.

4. A dedicated section or special edition should be in the surgical journals to publish negative results. As a further step, we can start journals dedicated to publishing only the research with negative results! (like International Journal of Negative Results, IJNR).^[4]

5. Pre-Registration and Mandated Publication: Pre-registration of trials and research studies should be made mandatory to ensure accountability. Institutions and journals could collaborate to track and verify that all registered studies are published regardless of results, positive or negative.

6. Training and Support: Researchers need training on how to write and publish negative results effectively. Workshops and mentorship programs can empower researchers to recognise the value of their work and overcome publication barriers.

To conclude, negative results are neither failures nor waste. The time and resources invested in research that yields negative results are far from wasted—they are an essential part of the scientific process. In fact, it is a waste when not published. By publishing these findings, the effort and dedication of researchers are honoured, scientific integrity is promoted, and future progress is enabled. It is time to shatter the stigma surrounding the negative results and embrace negative results as a cornerstone of evidence-based practice.

Surgeons, scientists, and policymakers must unite to ensure that all research, irrespective of outcome, finds its rightful place in the scientific literature. In doing so, we strengthen the foundation of our discipline and inspire innovation for generations to come.

Let us remember: science is not only about proving hypotheses; it is about learning, evolving, and striving for truth—whatever form that truth may take.