Re:Just 11% of 53 cancer research papers were reproducible
by pg on Thursday May 09, 2013 @01:17PM
(#5681641)
I feel obliged to point out that these other journals are merely copying the real pioneer in this field: http://jir.com.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Just 11% of 53 cancer research papers were reproducible
by irollboozers on Thursday May 09, 2013 @02:54PM
(#5682274)
Negative results vary from field to field. In math or physics, a conclusive negative can be very important in deciding what to study next or disproving established theory. In biology, a negative usually just means "I haven't found what I'm looking for yet".
Re:Just 11% of 53 cancer research papers were reproducible
by omnisci on Thursday May 09, 2013 @03:30PM
(#5682450)
And that is the exact problem with certain researchers. I just had to explain this to my undergrad who's project resulted in negative results (his 1'st study). I congratulated him, as he discovered that the treatment he gave did NOT effect the genes he looked into. He didn't understand, so I had to explain that his study (with the correct controls), provided information that is useful to science.
Negative data = data.
Data = good :)