Close Menu

For several years, many researchers have begun to recognize the value of negative results in scientific publications. "For a variety of reasons, positive publication bias is a real phenomenon," says Retraction Watch's Ivan Oransky. "In clinical medicine, that can paint a more optimistic picture of a field than is actually the case. And in basic science, it can mean other scientists may repeat experiments that have already failed."

To read the full story....

...and receive Daily News bulletins.

Already have a GenomeWeb or 360Dx account?
Login Now.

Don't have a GenomeWeb or 360Dx account?
Register for Free.

Springer Nature announces €9,500 fee to make papers open-access in Nature and its family of journals.

Librarians have concluded that notebooks that belonged to Charles Darwin that were thought to have been lost were actually likely stolen, CNN reports.

An early SARS-CoV-2 alteration may have enabled it to spread more easily, according to the New York Times.

In PNAS this week: ultrarare variants contribute to aging-related hearing loss, telomeres of cells infected with herpesvirus, and more.