Very interesting piece by Douglas L. Campbell on his blog about fixing academic journals. But I think there’s also another problem: negative results have a very low probability to be published.
I know this specific issue is not related to academic journals per see, as it depends more on the way researchers perceive what’s scientifically valuable in their field. But negative results should not be forgotten in the race of publishing, because a good experimental protocol or a good econometric setting that leads to a “I didn’t find what I was looking for” conclusion is a form of knowledge.
How to Cure a Cancer: Thoughts on Improving Academic Journals
So, I currently have a paper that has been under review since last December, coming up on 7 months. A friend of mine recently waited somethi…