We are happy to present this new initiative
‘Be Positive About the Negative in Pharmacology’ series of article collections hosted across the
Frontiers in Pharmacology journal. This collection aims to assess ‘negative results’ in science, often known as orphan data, that result in nullifying the hypothesis of scientific questions posed.
Negative results, or the idea of ‘finding nothing’, can be essential to advancing knowledge in the field of Gastrointestinal and Hepatic Pharmacology. More often than expected and reflected in scientific publications, scientists are faced with results from well-designed experiments that failed to support an existing theory or negative results that ultimately led to disprove a hypothesis or a theory. In the absence of knowing the presence of these negative results, researchers end up utilizing valuable resources and time on experiments that have already been performed. In the field of pharmacology, this can lead to the loss of millions of dollars that could be used to fund other initiatives. There is a negative connotation associated with disproving hypotheses and most manuscripts published rely on advancements and discoveries within the field. However, we believe that acknowledging deviations from the expectation or proving when something is not the case should also be disseminated to a wider audience, which will save funding and help provide alternative strategies to answer such research questions. Therefore, this Research Topic aims to acknowledge the negative results produced within the field of Gastrointestinal and Hepatic Pharmacology.
This Research Topic wants to remove the perception that negative results are difficult to publish. Highlighting negative results can improve science and help collaborative research enabling other scientists to learn from them. We welcome submissions including manuscripts of Original Research, Clinical studies, Commentaries, and Reviews that address the negative results and nullifying hypotheses within the field of Gastrointestinal and Hepatic Pharmacology. Topics include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. Problems in translating preclinical findings into the clinic
2. Discrepant findings in different models
3. Off-target effects
4. Results nullifying actual hypothesis
5. Strategies to prevent bias in study design
6. Retest a theory using newly developed tools
7. Clinical and basic studies challenge the current dogma or point out its imperfectness
8. Any studies identifying flaws in previously published results
This article collection will inform and help provide direction and guidance to researchers in the field. Only manuscripts that focus solely on negative, null or inconclusive results will be considered for peer-review.
Note to authors: We would also like to draw to the attention of authors who are hoping to submit to this collection, to the development of
PEER, an open access ‘Platform for the Exchange of Experimental Research Standards’ built to aid scientists in determining experimental factors and variables most likely to affect experimental outcomes.
Please note: Manuscripts submitted to the section must adhere to the author’s guidelines and article types specific to the section. Only manuscripts of sound experimental planning and high quality research will be considered for review.