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....

Register for Free.

...and receive Daily News bulletins.

Already have an account?
Login Now.

Lawmakers have asked four direct-to-consumer genetic testing companies to explain their privacy policies and security measures, according to Stat News.

The Trump Administration has proposed a plan to reorganize the federal government, the Washington Post reports.

In Science this week: genetic overlap among many psychiatric disorders, and more.

The Economist writes that an increasing number of scientific journals don't do peer review.