= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
AndrewKemendo comments on The Journal of (Failed) Replication Studies - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (14)
There are a few Journals of negative results already out there:
http://www.jnrbm.com/
http://www.jnr-eeb.org/index.php/jnr
Cool, thanks! (Also, Google-fu fail on my part.)
One other journal I just found (although no publications there yet): http://www.arjournals.com/ojs/
If this is representative, then it's both encouraging (at least a few folks are taking the problem seriously) and discouraging (they're too few). At least now there's something concrete to evangelize :-)
A novel negative result isn't the same as failing to replicate a study published by someone else.
At least in the second journal (of ecology and evolutionary biology), they do say they accept replication studies.