Phcog.Net logo

BROWSE ALL JOURNALS

    SEE ALL 6 JOURNALS
    Article

    Journal of Contradicting Results in Science

    I.E. Cock1,2★★ Corresponding author

    1. 1Biomolecular and Physical Sciences, Nathan Campus, Griffith University, 170 Kessels Rd, Nathan, Brisbane, Queensland 4111, AUSTRALIA.
    2. 2Environmental Futures Centre, Nathan Campus, Griffith University, 170 Kessels Rd, Nathan, Brisbane, Queensland 4111, AUSTRALIA.

    CORRESPONDENCE

    I.E. Cock

    Biomolecular and Physical Sciences, Nathan Campus, Griffith University, 170 Kessels Rd, Nathan, Brisbane, Queensland 4111, AUSTRALIA.

    editor@phcogcommn.org

    Volume 2, Issue 1 · pp. 87–88 · PUBLISHED · DOI: 10.5530/pc.2012.1.17

    View on Pharmacogn. Commn. original site ↗

    ABSTRACT

    There is currently a bias to publish only results that are perceived as ‘successful’; i.e. results that are positive (showing a significant finding) and/or that fit within the current model for a given research field. Results that are negative (supporting the null hypothesis) or are inconclusive are often not published, leading to a biased (perhaps false) representation in the published literature. Furthermore, results that refute a current paradigm often meet with considerable resistance to publication. The Journal of Contradicting Results in Science (JCRSCI) (http://www. jcrsci.org/) has been established by SciBiolMed.Org (http://www.scibiolmed.org) to address this imbalance. JCRSCI encourages the submission of original research articles resulting in controversial/negative results. By counterbalancing the selective reporting of ‘positive’ results, JCRSCI aims to foster discussion of controversial, unexpected and negative results and their context within current paradigms.

    KEYWORDS

      Open in new tab

      REFERENCES

      As published

      Showing references and in-text citations exactly as published.

        Cite this article

        SELECT FORMAT

        Cock, I. (). Journal of Contradicting Results in Science. Pharmacognosy Communications, 2(1), 87–88. https://doi.org/DOI: 10.5530/pc.2012.1.17