A critical scientific evaluation of a purportedly negative data report - response to Seneviratne et al. 2022.

ABSTRACT: A core principle in the pursuit of scientific knowledge is that science is self-correcting and that important results should be replicable. Hypotheses need to be reinforced, adjusted, or rejected when novel results are obtained. Replication of results confirms hypotheses and enhances their integration into scientific practice. In contrast, publication of substantiated and replicated negative findings (i.e., non-significant or opposite findings) can be the basis to reject erroneous hypotheses or develop alternative strategies for investigation. Replication is a problem in all research fields. The Psychology Reproductivity Project reported that only 36% of 'highly influential' published research in highly ranked journals were reproduced. Similar to positive data, negative data can be flawed.

SUBMITTER: Johnson B 

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10582924 | biostudies-literature | 2023

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature