IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v95y2013i1d10.1007_s11192-012-0829-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploring the bibliometric and semantic nature of negative results

Author

Listed:
  • Christian Gumpenberger

    (University of Vienna)

  • Juan Gorraiz

    (University of Vienna)

  • Martin Wieland

    (University of Vienna)

  • Ivana Roche

    (INIST–CNRS Institut de l’Information Scientifique et Technique)

  • Edgar Schiebel

    (AIT Austrian Institute of Technology GmbH, Tech Gate Vienna)

  • Dominique Besagni

    (INIST–CNRS Institut de l’Information Scientifique et Technique)

  • Claire François

    (INIST–CNRS Institut de l’Information Scientifique et Technique)

Abstract

Negative results are not popular to disseminate. However, their publication would help to save resources and foster scientific communication. This study analysed the bibliometric and semantic nature of negative results publications. The Journal of Negative Results in Biomedicine (JNRBM) was used as a role model. Its complete articles from 2002–2009 were extracted from SCOPUS and supplemented by related records. Complementary negative results records were retrieved from Web of Science in “Biochemistry” and “Telecommunications”. Applied bibliometrics comprised of co-author and co-affiliation analysis and a citation impact profile. Bibliometrics showed that authorship is widely spread. A specific community for the publication of negative results in devoted literature is non-existent. Neither co-author nor co-affiliation analysis indicated strong interconnectivities. JNRBM articles are cited by a broad spectrum of journals rather than by specific titles. Devoted negative results journals like JNRBM have a rather low impact measured by the number of received citations. On the other hand, only one-third of the publications remain uncited, corroborating their importance for the scientific community. The semantic analysis relies on negative expressions manually identified in JNRBM article titles and abstracts and extracted to syntactic patterns. By using a Natural Language Processing tool these patterns are then employed to detect their occurrences in the multidisciplinary bibliographical database PASCAL. The translation of manually identified negation patterns to syntactic patterns and their application to multidisciplinary bibliographic databases (PASCAL, Web of Science) proved to be a successful method to retrieve even hidden negative results. There is proof that negative results are not only restricted to the biomedical domain. Interestingly a high percentage of the so far identified negative results papers were funded and therefore needed to be published. Thus policies that explicitly encourage or even mandate the publication of negative results could probably bring about a shift in the current scientific communication behaviour.

Suggested Citation

  • Christian Gumpenberger & Juan Gorraiz & Martin Wieland & Ivana Roche & Edgar Schiebel & Dominique Besagni & Claire François, 2013. "Exploring the bibliometric and semantic nature of negative results," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(1), pages 277-297, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:95:y:2013:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-012-0829-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-012-0829-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-012-0829-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-012-0829-z?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. González-Pereira, Borja & Guerrero-Bote, Vicente P. & Moya-Anegón, Félix, 2010. "A new approach to the metric of journals’ scientific prestige: The SJR indicator," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 4(3), pages 379-391.
    2. Daniele Fanelli, 2010. "Do Pressures to Publish Increase Scientists' Bias? An Empirical Support from US States Data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(4), pages 1-7, April.
    3. Nitin Gupta & Mark Stopfer, 2011. "Negative results need airing too," Nature, Nature, vol. 470(7332), pages 39-39, February.
    4. Daniele Fanelli, 2009. "How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(5), pages 1-11, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tian, Dan & Hu, Xiao & Qian, Yuchen & Li, Jiang, 2024. "Exploring the scientific impact of negative results," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(1).
    2. Russell Smyth & Vinod Mishra, 2014. "Academic inbreeding and research productivity and impact in Australian law schools," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(1), pages 583-618, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jasper Brinkerink, 2023. "When Shooting for the Stars Becomes Aiming for Asterisks: P-Hacking in Family Business Research," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 47(2), pages 304-343, March.
    2. Necker, Sarah, 2014. "Scientific misbehavior in economics," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(10), pages 1747-1759.
    3. Daniele Fanelli & Rodrigo Costas & Vincent Larivière, 2015. "Misconduct Policies, Academic Culture and Career Stage, Not Gender or Pressures to Publish, Affect Scientific Integrity," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-18, June.
    4. Fabo, Brian & Jančoková, Martina & Kempf, Elisabeth & Pástor, Ľuboš, 2021. "Fifty shades of QE: Comparing findings of central bankers and academics," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 1-20.
    5. David Pontille & Didier Torny, 2013. "Behind the scenes of scientific articles: defining categories of fraud and regulating cases," CSI Working Papers Series 031, Centre de Sociologie de l'Innovation (CSI), Mines ParisTech.
    6. Moritz A. Drupp & Menusch Khadjavi & Rudi Voss, 2024. "The Truth-Telling of Truth-Seekers: Evidence from Online Experiments with Scientists," CESifo Working Paper Series 10897, CESifo.
    7. Salandra, Rossella, 2018. "Knowledge dissemination in clinical trials: Exploring influences of institutional support and type of innovation on selective reporting," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(7), pages 1215-1228.
    8. Matteo Migheli & Giovanni B. Ramello, 2014. "Open Access Journals & Academics’ Behaviour," ICER Working Papers 03-2014, ICER - International Centre for Economic Research.
    9. Moustafa, Khaled, 2018. "Don't fall in common science pitfall!," FrenXiv ycjha, Center for Open Science.
    10. Said Fathalla & Sahar Vahdati & Christoph Lange & Sören Auer, 2020. "Scholarly event characteristics in four fields of science: a metrics-based analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(2), pages 677-705, May.
    11. Pantazi Marius, 2021. "In order to thrive, first we need to fix accounting and management Then, we must report what matters," Proceedings of the International Conference on Business Excellence, Sciendo, vol. 15(1), pages 723-736, December.
    12. Stefan, Matthias & Huber, Jürgen & Kirchler, Michael & Sutter, Matthias & Walzl, Markus, 2023. "Monetary and social incentives in multi-tasking: The ranking substitution effect," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    13. Love, Peter E.D. & Ika, Lavagnon A. & Ahiaga-Dagbui, Dominic D., 2019. "On de-bunking ‘fake news’ in a post truth era: Why does the Planning Fallacy explanation for cost overruns fall short?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 397-408.
    14. Jeremy Hall & Ben R. Martin, 2019. "Towards a Taxonomy of Academic Misconduct: The Case of Business School Research," SPRU Working Paper Series 2019-02, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    15. Walters, William H., 2017. "Do subjective journal ratings represent whole journals or typical articles? Unweighted or weighted citation impact?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 730-744.
    16. J. A. García & Rosa Rodriguez-Sánchez & J. Fdez-Valdivia & J. Martinez-Baena, 2012. "On first quartile journals which are not of highest impact," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(3), pages 925-943, March.
    17. Matthias Stefan & Jürgen Huber & Michael Kirchler & Matthias Sutter & Markus Walzl, 2020. "Monetary and Social Incentives in Multi-Tasking: The Ranking Substitution Effect," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2020_10, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    18. Dejian Yu & Wanru Wang & Shuai Zhang & Wenyu Zhang & Rongyu Liu, 2017. "A multiple-link, mutually reinforced journal-ranking model to measure the prestige of journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(1), pages 521-542, April.
    19. Kartal, Melis & Tremewan, James, 2018. "An offer you can refuse: The effect of transparency with endogenous conflict of interest," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 44-55.
    20. Thor, Andreas & Marx, Werner & Leydesdorff, Loet & Bornmann, Lutz, 2016. "Introducing CitedReferencesExplorer (CRExplorer): A program for reference publication year spectroscopy with cited references standardization," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 503-515.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:95:y:2013:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-012-0829-z. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.