tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-43905019836071527992024-03-05T01:06:59.218-08:00Science NewsA place for the latest scientific newsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger24125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4390501983607152799.post-29703549785125825622014-09-27T13:16:00.001-07:002014-09-27T13:16:18.351-07:00The All Results Journals: Negative Results in Treatment of Psoriasis<a href="http://blog.arjournals.com/2014/09/negative-results-in-treatment-of.html?spref=bl">The All Results Journals: Negative Results in Treatment of Psoriasis</a>: Psoriasis is one of the most common dermatological diseases. It is characterized by red, thickened, well demarcated and symmetrical plaque...Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4390501983607152799.post-47596269235540763592012-01-25T01:45:00.000-08:002012-01-25T01:51:32.203-08:00The All Results Journals appoints Section Editors to assist with peer-review process<div class="separator" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.arjournals.com/ojs/index.php?journal=Chem" target="_blank"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJYNslxcBnjJz-crtrs3XpcH5zb7yYkWhwL6JWe9zDsJWEV18o_jC-C1GG_JO_Fd9aYsPTt75eLFPCPH2XMb99JgLfqmeJPsOOv1EzGHxSRpgs8Zsh2HmmR44EvgCs7CMo-WInOuMVA0g/s200/P_Chem-A.jpg" width="141" /></a></div><br />
“The All Results Journals' immediate goal is to provide scientists with responsible and balanced information in order to improve experimental designs and clinical decisions”, comments Dr. David Alcantara, Editor-in-Chief of this journal.<br />
<br />
The importance and usefulness of negative results is something that is arguably overlooked in the scientific arena; they are often perceived as less important due to the fact that they fail to confirm various hypotheses. This view however is gradually changing, with a growing awareness of how constructive and useful they can actually be to science.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.arjournals.com/" target="_blank">The All Results Journals</a> promotes the publication of negative results and data in Chemistry, Biology, Physics and Nanotechnology, and supports the idea that scientists should be provided with balanced information which can offer a more complete scientific record, thereby reducing the risk of publication bias or later rebuttal of research. Dr. Alcantara, also strongly believe that “such "negative" observations and conclusions, based on rigorous experimentation and thorough documentation, ought to be published in order to be discussed, confirmed or refuted by others”.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.arjournals.com/ojs/index.php?journal=Biol" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhR-pJB6Cdr_vEbquHyoPKxWStnIhmR36Sz2QgJ5PMVh4iDrCTdzOCz3Jwp8dYqiNbi1stS7A2Qk5013Vy4Z7TuEg8LhVgmCtntlwcyQ4pIZtHMYVS1_v8Su0GXI_hG2Un4Kgufdah9fmw/s200/P_Biol-A.jpg" width="141" /></a></div>Perhaps in reflection of this rising awareness of the importance of publishing negative results, 2011 saw an increase in submissions to The All Results Journals, leading to the recruitment of a number of Section Editors to provide their scientific expertise to assist with the peer-review process. The hope is that adopting this model will lead not only to a more efficient peer-review process, but also an improved capacity to publish even more of this incredibly valuable research.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
To submit your manuscript documenting negative data or results, please click in "<a href="http://blog.arjournals.com/p/call-for-papers.html" target="_blank">SUBMIT A MANUSCRIPT</a>" in the journal of interest. If you are interested in writing a Commentary article about your views on negative results, please email <a href="mailto:alcantara@arjournals.com">alcantara@arjournals.com</a> to discuss your proposal.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4390501983607152799.post-56551170233397887262011-03-15T08:00:00.000-07:002011-03-15T08:00:12.428-07:00why publishing negative results?Everyone likes positive results. But the fact is that they are the fewer, especially when you talk about Science. Many scientific journals skew towards only publishing "positive" data; that is, data that more easily proves a a priori principle. Others, like The All Results Journals are the home for negative data: experimental documentation of hypotheses that become not to be true, or other experiments that do not contribute to an advance of a explicit hypothesis but are, on the other hand, a true rendering of that experiment. For example, if a researcher set up a cell-based experiment and the experiment did not work in a specific set of conditions, it would be very practical for other investigators to know this (to avoid time and money wasting and better planning). There is a huge untapped resource of experimental data secured in laboratory notebooks that could be of great service to the scientific society at large. Many experiments don't succeed to produce results or expected discoveries. This high portion of "failed" research can still generate high quality data. The main aspiration of The All Results Journals is to recover and publish these significant pieces of scientific material.<br />
<br />
As they (The All Results Journals) continue <a href="http://www.articlesbase.com/science-articles/the-importance-of-publishing-negative-results-3618877.html">publishing negative results,</a> the newer generation of specialists will not spend their time and revenue duplicating the similar studies and finding the same results (negative in this case). Negative results are high-level pieces of knowledge that is worthy to be presented. Some authors have pointed out elsewhere the problem of publication bias, a well-known phenomenon in clinical literature, in which affirmative results have a better chance of being published, are published faster, and are published in journals with higher impact factors. So this is a real trouble.<br />
<br />
As scientists we struggle for remarkable analysis within biological systems that will further boost our understanding of the human condition, aging, cancer, autoimmunity, etc. Occasionally the pieces just don't add up. These <a href="http://arjournals.com/ojs/index.php?journal=Biol&page=index">negative results in Biology</a> force our next step at the bench but are hardly ever published. Bringing to light these types of finding under peer review will boost our modern society for the greater good. If you make accessible a manuscript about what didn't work you can build on the pit falls of others rather than simply reduplicate them. As an alternative of three steps forward and two steps back, Science could just move forward.<br />
<br />
In Cancer research or chemotherapeutic development, for example, the pattern is to publish data showing effectiveness. We propose that inefficacy could also be of remarkable relevance to the scientific community. What agents failed, in what types of cancer and why; the latter question albeit hard to answer. One could visualize the same tendencies emerging from this this sort of work in terms of gene expression profiling, proteomics and biomarkers. Agent X will not be powerful in cancer Y because of overexpression of biomarker Z. A paper focused on the inefficacy of a particular chemotherapeutic compound could help out in moving the cancer biology field forward by offering a community forum to share with the more significant cancer research community the same negative findings that may have made a contribution to the development of a highly successful agent.<br />
<br />
Basically the tip of the iceberg are being published in Science; only positive results. Projects like The All Results Journals:Chem target publishing carefully carried out chemical studies delivering negative results. These journals are trying to get out the water the complete iceberg (the whole study, showing "All Results" of the author, the complete picture of his research topic, the real job done, not only the positive outcomes). Researchers have the duty to study Nature and inform everything, and this includes reporting the negative findings. Even more: the research projects might have been funded by government agencies, and that means public money... In part, funding agencies have some responsibility; they should also foster the publishing of all results (specially negative results) not only positive.<br />
<div><br />
</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4390501983607152799.post-5015941448558813902011-03-13T07:59:00.000-07:002011-03-13T07:59:00.663-07:00would you publish negative results?Everyone likes positive results. But the fact is that they are the less, especially when you talk about Science. Many scientific journals skew towards only publishing "positive" data; that is, data that comfortably proves a a priori principle. Others, like <a href="http://www.articlesbase.com/science-articles/the-importance-of-publishing-negative-results-3618877.html">The All Results Journals </a>are the home for negative data: experimental certification of hypotheses that come out not to be true, or other experiments that do not lead to an advance of a specific theory but are, on the other hand, a true rendering of that trial. For example, if a researcher set up a cell-based experiment and the experiment did not work in a particular set of conditions, it would be very useful for other professionals to know this (to avoid time and money wasting and better planning). There is a huge available resource of experimental knowledge secured in laboratory notebooks that could be of great service to the scientific family at large. Many experiments don't succeed to produce results or expected discoveries. This high amount of "failed" research can still generate high quality information. The main objective of The All Results Journals is to recover and publish these priceless pieces of scientific material.<br />
<br />
As they (The All Results Journals) proceed publishing negative results, the newer generation of experts will not spend their time and funding repeating the same studies and finding the same results (negative in this case). Negative results are high-level pieces of expertise that is deserving to be presented. Some authors have pointed out elsewhere the problem of publication bias, a well-known phenomenon in clinical writings, in which positive results have a better chance of being published, are published sooner, and are published in journals with greater impact factors. So this is a real drawback.<br />
<br />
As scientists we strive for remarkable insights within biological systems that will further broaden our comprehension of the human condition, maturing, cancer, autoimmunity, etc. Occasionally the components just don't add up. These negative results in Biology force our next step at the bench but are infrequently published. Bringing to light these types of finding under peer review will strengthen our society for the greater good. If you make readily available a article about what didn't work you can build on the complications of others rather than simply repeat them. As an alternative of three steps forward and two steps back, Science could just move forward.<br />
<br />
In Cancer research or chemotherapeutic development, for example, the trend is to publish data showing potency. We suggest that inefficacy could also be of good value to the scientific community. What medicines failed, in what types of cancer and why; the latter question albeit very hard to answer. One could consider the same tendencies emerging from this this sort of work in terms of gene expression profiling, proteomics and biomarkers. Agent X will not be beneficial in cancer Y because of overexpression of biomarker Z. A paper focused on the inefficacy of a particular chemotherapeutic chemical could assist in moving the cancer biology field forward by offering a community forum to share with the greater cancer research community the same negative findings that may have made a contribution to the development of a highly effective agent.<br />
<br />
Just the tip of the iceberg are being published in Science; only positive results. Projects like The All Results Journals:Chem focus on publishing carefully executed <a href="http://arjournals.com/ojs/index.php?journal=Chem&page=index">chemical tests yielding negative results</a>. These journals are trying to get out the water the complete iceberg (the total study, showing "All Results" of the author, the complete picture of his research topic, the real job done, not only the positive outcomes). Scientists have the responsibility to study Nature and inform all, and this includes reporting the negative studies. Even more: the research projects might have been funded by nation agencies, and that means public revenue... In part, funding agencies have some commitment; they should also push the publishing of all results (specially negative results) not only positive.<br />
<div><br />
</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4390501983607152799.post-72736661409340914002011-03-09T07:55:00.000-08:002011-03-09T07:55:01.272-08:00How to publish negative resultsEverybody likes positive results. But the fact is that they are the fewer, especially when you talk about Science. Many scientific journals skew towards only publishing "positive" data; that is, data that comfortably proves a a priori principle. Others, like <a href="http://www.articlesbase.com/science-articles/the-importance-of-publishing-negative-results-3618877.html">The All Results Journals</a> are the home for negative data: experimental records of hypotheses that End up not to be true, or other experiments that do not contribute to an advance of a particular theorem but are, nonetheless, a true rendering of that test. For example, if a researcher set up a cell-based experiment and the experiment did not work in a specified set of conditions, it would be very useful for other researchers to know this (to avoid time and money wasting and better planning). There is a huge available resource of experimental information locked up in laboratory notebooks that could be of great service to the scientific network at large. Many experiments fail to produce results or expected discoveries. This high percentage of "failed" research can still generate high quality data. The main purpose of The All Results Journals is to recover and publish these precious pieces of scientific knowledge.<br />
<br />
As they (The All Results Journals) continue publishing negative results, the faster growing generation of specialists will not waste their time and Funds repeating the same studies and finding the same results (negative in this case). Negative results are high-level pieces of wisdom that is worthy to be published. Some authors have pointed out elsewhere the problem of publication bias, a well-known problem in clinical writings, in which affirmative results have a better chance of being published, are published sooner, and are published in journals with larger impact factors. So this is a serious trouble.<br />
<br />
As researchers we strive for remarkable observations within biological systems that will further enlarge our comprehension of the human condition, aging, cancer, autoimmunity, etc. From time to time the pieces just don't add up. These negative results in Biology force our next step at the bench but are barely ever published. Bringing to light these types of observations under peer review will boost our civilization for the greater good. If you make easily accessible a article about what didn't work you can build on the pit falls of others rather than simply duplicate them. As an alternative of three steps forward and two steps back, Science could just move forward.<br />
<br />
In Cancer research or chemotherapeutic development, for example, the pattern is to publish data showing potency. We offer that inefficacy could also be of remarkable value to the scientific community. What medications failed, in what types of cancer and why; the latter question albeit difficult to answer. One could visualize the same tendencies emerging from this this sort of work in terms of gene expression profiling, proteomics and biomarkers. Agent X will not be beneficial in cancer Y because of overexpression of biomarker Z. A paper focused on the inefficacy of a particular chemotherapeutic chemical could help in moving the cancer biology field forward by offering a forum to share with the increasing cancer research community the same negative findings that may have made a contribution to the development of a extremely useful agent.<br />
<br />
Just the tip of the iceberg are being published in Science; only positive results. Projects like The All Results Journals:Chem focus on publishing carefully performed chemical studies producing negative results. These journals are trying to get out the water the complete iceberg (the full study, showing "All Results" of the scientist, the complete image of his research topic, the real job done, not only the positive outcomes). Researchers have the responsibility to study Nature and report all, and this includes documenting the negative conclusions. Even more: the research projects might have been funded by government agencies, and that means public financial resources... In part, funding agencies have some commitment; they should also foster the publishing of all results (specially negative results) not only positive.<br />
<div><br />
</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4390501983607152799.post-26632837412335641652011-03-07T07:51:00.000-08:002011-03-07T07:51:01.041-08:00Negative results for advancing scienceEverybody likes positive results. But the fact is that they are the less, especially when you talk about Science. Many scientific journals skew towards only publishing "positive" data; that is, data that successfully proves a hypothesis. Others, like The All Results Journals are the home for negative data: experimental records of hypotheses that End up not to be true, or other experiments that do not contribute to an advance of a certain theorem but are, still, a true rendering of that test. For example, if a researcher set up a cell-based experiment and the experiment did not work in a specific set of conditions, it would be very significant for other experts to know this (to avoid time and money wasting and better planning). There is a huge available resource of experimental facts locked up in laboratory notebooks that could be of great service to the scientific community at large. Many experiments fail to produce results or expected discoveries. This high portion of "failed" research can still generate high quality wisdom. The main purpose of The All Results Journals is to recover and publish these significant pieces of scientific information.<br />
<br />
As they (The All Results Journals) carry on<a href="http://www.articlesbase.com/science-articles/the-importance-of-publishing-negative-results-3618877.html"> publishing negative results,</a> the faster growing generation of doctors will not spend their time and money replicating the same studies and finding the same results (negative in this case). Negative results are high-level pieces of information that needs to be published. Some authors have pointed out elsewhere the problem of publication bias, a well-known problem in clinical publications, in which optimistic results have a better chance of being published, are published quicker, and are published in journals with larger impact factors. So this is a real problem.<br />
<br />
As scientists we attempt for remarkable observations within biological systems that will further boost our knowledge of the human condition, maturing, cancer, autoimmunity, etc. Occasionally the pieces just don't add up. These negative results in Biology move our next step at the bench but are almost never published. Bringing to light these types of finding under peer review will enhance our modern society for the greater good. If you make available a article about what didn't work you can build on the complications of others rather than simply duplicate them. Instead of three steps forward and two steps back, Science could just move forward.<br />
<br />
In Cancer research or chemotherapeutic development, for example, the trend is to publish data showing potency. We suggest that inefficacy could also be of good value to the scientific community. What agents failed, in what types of cancer and why; the latter question albeit very hard to explain. One could consider the same tendencies emerging from this this sort of work in terms of gene expression profiling, proteomics and biomarkers. Agent X will not be good in cancer Y because of overexpression of biomarker Z. A paper focused on the inefficacy of a particular chemotherapeutic chemical could help out in moving the cancer biology field forward by offering a discussion forum to share with the increasing cancer research community the same negative findings that may have made a contribution to the development of a extremely useful agent.<br />
<br />
Basically the tip of the iceberg are being published in Science; only positive results. Projects like The All Results Journals:Chem concentrate on publishing rigorously carried out chemical studies yielding negative results. These journals are trying to get out the water the complete iceberg (the entire study, showing "All Results" of the scientist, the complete picture of his research topic, the real job done, not only the positive outcomes). Scientists have the commitment to study Nature and document all, and this includes documenting the negative findings. Even more: the research projects might have been funded by nation agencies, and that means public revenue... In part, funding agencies have some liability; they should also foster the publishing of all results (specially negative results) not only positive.<br />
<div><br />
</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4390501983607152799.post-87215015588707295632011-03-04T07:47:00.000-08:002011-03-04T07:47:00.700-08:00Who cares about negative results?Everybody likes positive results. But the fact is that they are the lower, especially when you talk about Science. Many scientific journals bias towards only publishing "positive" data; that is, data that more easily proves a theorem. Others, like The All Results Journals are the home for negative data: experimental data of hypotheses that End up not to be true, or other experiments that do not lead to an advance of a definite theorem but are, nevertheless, a true rendering of that trial. For example, if a researcher set up a cell-based experiment and the experiment did not work in a specific set of conditions, it would be very practical for other scientists to know this (to avoid time and money wasting and better planning). There is a huge untapped resource of experimental information locked away in laboratory notebooks that could be of great service to the scientific network at large. Many experiments fail to produce results or expected discoveries. This high volume of "failed" research can still generate high quality knowledge. The main intention of The All Results Journals is to recover and publish these important pieces of scientific information.<br />
<br />
As they (The All Results Journals) continue<a href="http://www.articlesbase.com/science-articles/the-importance-of-publishing-negative-results-3618877.html"> publishing negative results, </a>the faster growing generation of specialists will not misuse their time and Funds replicating the same studies and finding the same results (negative in this case). Negative results are high-level pieces of information that is deserving to be published. Some authors have pointed out elsewhere the problem of publication bias, a well-known problem in clinical literature, in which positive results have a better chance of being published, are published faster, and are published in journals with bigger impact factors. So this is a real drawback.<br />
<br />
As researchers we strive for remarkable findings within biological systems that will further broaden our understanding of the human condition, aging, cancer, autoimmunity, etc. From time to time the components just don't add up. These negative results in Biology force our next step at the bench but are barely ever published. Bringing to light these types of observations under peer review will strengthen our society for the greater good. If you make readily available a article about what didn't work you can build on the mistakes of others rather than simply repeat them. Alternatively of three steps forward and two steps back, Science could just move forward.<br />
<br />
In Cancer research or chemotherapeutic development, for example, the trend is to publish data showing potency. We suggest that inefficacy could also be of great relevance to the scientific community. What agents failed, in what types of cancer and why; the latter question albeit very hard to answer. One could envision the same trends emerging from this type of work in terms of gene expression profiling, proteomics and biomarkers. Agent X will not be effective in cancer Y because of overexpression of biomarker Z. A manuscript focused on the inefficacy of a particular chemotherapeutic agent could help in moving the cancer biology field forward by offering a discussion forum to share with the increasing cancer research community the same negative findings that may have lead to the development of a highly powerful agent.<br />
<br />
Basically the tip of the iceberg are being published in Science; only positive results. Projects like The All Results Journals:Chem focus on publishing carefully carried out chemical tests delivering negative results. These journals are trying to get out the water the complete iceberg (the full study, showing "All Results" of the author, the complete image of his research topic, the real job done, not only the positive outcomes). Scientific researchers have the duty to study Nature and document all, and this includes reporting the negative findings. Even more: the research projects might have been funded by public agencies, and that means public funds... In part, funding agencies have some responsibility; they should also foster the publishing of all results (specially negative results) not only positive.<br />
<div><br />
</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4390501983607152799.post-49211847092339843382011-02-28T07:40:00.000-08:002011-02-28T07:40:00.257-08:00Negative results: Publish or not to publish?Everyone likes positive results. But the fact is that they are the fewer, especially when you talk about Science. Many scientific journals skew towards only publishing "positive" data; that is, data that fruitfully proves a hypothesis. Others, like <a href="http://www.articlesbase.com/science-articles/the-importance-of-publishing-negative-results-3618877.html">The All Results Journals </a>are the home for negative data: experimental certification of hypotheses that end up not to be true, or other experiments that do not lead to an advance of a specific hypothesis but are, on the other hand, a true rendering of that experiment. For example, if a researcher set up a cell-based experiment and the experiment did not work in a specified set of conditions, it would be very meaningful for other investigators to know this (to avoid time and money wasting and better planning). There is a huge unexploited resource of experimental facts convicted in laboratory notebooks that could be of great service to the scientific family at large. Many experiments fail to produce results or expected discoveries. This high number of "failed" research can still generate high quality information. The main purpose of The All Results Journals is to recover and publish these priceless pieces of scientific knowledge.<br />
<br />
As they (The All Results Journals) carry on publishing negative results, the newer generation of scholars will not waste their time and funding duplicating the equivalent studies and finding the same results (negative in this case). Negative results are high-level pieces of wisdom that needs to be published. Some authors have pointed out elsewhere the problem of publication bias, a well-known phenomenon in clinical writings, in which affirmative results have a better chance of being published, are published quicker, and are published in journals with higher impact factors. So this is a real drawback.<br />
<br />
As specialists we strive for remarkable insights within biological systems that will further widen our comprehension of the human condition, maturing, cancer, autoimmunity, etc. Occasionally the components just don't add up. These negative results in Biology move our next step at the bench but are infrequently published. Bringing to light these types of insights under peer review will strengthen our way of life for the greater good. If you make accessible a article about what didn't work you can build on the problems of others rather than simply reduplicate them. As an alternative of three steps forward and two steps back, Science could just move forward.<br />
<br />
In Cancer research or chemotherapeutic development, for example, the trend is to publish data showing efficacy. We offer that inefficacy could also be of remarkable significance to the scientific community. What medicines failed, in what types of cancer and why; the latter question albeit difficult to resolve. One could visualize the same trends emerging from this type of work in terms of gene expression profiling, proteomics and biomarkers. Agent X will not be highly effective in cancer Y because of overexpression of biomarker Z. A paper focused on the inefficacy of a particular chemotherapeutic chemical could help in moving the cancer biology field forward by offering a discussion forum to share with the increasing cancer research community the same negative findings that may have made a contribution to the development of a very successful agent.<br />
<br />
Just the tip of the iceberg are being published in Science; only positive results. Initiatives like The All Results Journals:Chem target publishing carefully carried out <a href="http://arjournals.com/ojs/index.php?journal=Chem&page=index">chemical tests generating negative results.</a> These journals are trying to get out the water the complete iceberg (the total study, showing "All Results" of the scientist, the complete picture of his research topic, the real job done, not only the positive outcomes). Scientific researchers have the responsibility to study Nature and inform everything, and this includes documenting the negative studies. Even more: the research projects might have been funded by nation agencies, and that means public financial resources... In part, funding agencies have some responsibility; they should also support the publishing of all results (specially negative results) not only positive.<br />
<div><br />
</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4390501983607152799.post-63985441798447429892011-02-26T07:36:00.000-08:002011-02-26T07:36:00.716-08:00The importance of publishing negative resultsEveryone likes positive results. But the fact is that they are the less, especially when you talk about Science. Many scientific journals skew towards only publishing "positive" data; that is, data that comfortably proves a theory. Others, like <a href="http://www.arjournals.com/">The All Results Journals </a>are the home for negative data: experimental documentation of hypotheses that come out not to be true, or other experiments that do not lead to an advance of a specific hypothesis but are, on the other hand, a true rendering of that experiment. For example, if a researcher set up a cell-based experiment and the experiment did not work in a specified set of conditions, it would be very significant for other scientists to know this (to avoid time and money wasting and better planning). There is a huge unused resource of experimental knowledge locked away in laboratory notebooks that could be of great service to the scientific network at large. Many experiments don't succeed to produce results or expected discoveries. This high percentage of "failed" research can still generate high quality knowledge. The main aspiration of The All Results Journals is to recover and publish these significant pieces of scientific material.<br />
<br />
As they (The All Results Journals) keep going publishing negative results, the most recent generation of doctors will not misuse their time and Funds replicating the similar studies and finding the same results (negative in this case). Negative results are high-level pieces of knowledge that is deserving to be presented. Some authors have pointed out elsewhere the problem of publication bias, a well-known phenomenon in clinical publications, in which optimistic results have a better chance of being published, are published earlier, and are published in journals with larger impact factors. So this is a serious problem.<br />
<br />
As researchers we struggle for remarkable insights within biological systems that will further grow our comprehension of the human condition, maturing, cancer, autoimmunity, etc. From time to time the pieces just don't add up. These <a href="http://arjournals.com/ojs/index.php?journal=Biol&page=index">negative results in Biology</a> push our next step at the bench but are almost never published. Bringing to light these types of finding under peer review will improve our world for the greater good. If you make easily accessible a manuscript about what didn't work you can build on the mistakes of others rather than simply duplicate them. Alternatively of three steps forward and two steps back, Science could just move forward.<br />
<br />
In Cancer research or chemotherapeutic development, for example, the trend is to publish data showing efficacy. We offer that inefficacy could also be of good significance to the scientific community. What components failed, in what types of cancer and why; the latter question albeit very difficult to resolve. One could consider the same trends emerging from this this sort of work in terms of gene expression profiling, proteomics and biomarkers. Agent X will not be good in cancer Y because of overexpression of biomarker Z. A paper focused on the inefficacy of a particular chemotherapeutic agent could assist in moving the cancer biology field forward by offering a forum to share with the increasing cancer research community the same negative findings that may have lead to the development of a extremely useful agent.<br />
<br />
Just the tip of the iceberg are being published in Science; only positive results. Initiatives like The All Results Journals:Chem concentrate on publishing rigorously carried out <a href="http://arjournals.com/ojs/index.php?journal=Chem&page=index">chemical tests yielding negative results.</a> These journals are trying to get out the water the complete iceberg (the entire study, showing "All Results" of the author, the complete picture of his research topic, the real job done, not only the positive outcomes). Scientists have the duty to study Nature and describe all, and this includes reporting the negative studies. Even more: the research projects might have been funded by nation agencies, and that means public money... In part, funding agencies have some responsibility; they should also foster the publishing of all results (specially negative results) not only positive.<br />
<div><br />
</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4390501983607152799.post-82980914962158286752011-02-22T19:48:00.000-08:002011-02-22T19:48:00.644-08:00The importance of publishing negative resultsEveryone likes positive results. But the fact is that they are the fewer, especially when you talk about Science. Many scientific journals skew towards only publishing "positive" data; that is, data that more easily proves a theorem. Others, like <a href="http://www.arjournals.com/">The All Results Journals</a> are the home for negative data: experimental documents of hypotheses that turn out not to be true, or other experiments that do not contribute to an advance of a individual hypothesis but are, nevertheless, a true rendering of that experiment. For example, if a researcher set up a cell-based experiment and the experiment did not work in a specific set of conditions, it would be very practical for other researchers to know this (to avoid time and money wasting and better planning). There is a huge available resource of experimental data confined in laboratory notebooks that could be of great service to the scientific society at large. Many experiments don't succeed to produce results or expected discoveries. This high volume of "failed" research can still generate high quality wisdom. The main intention of The All Results Journals is to recover and publish these precious pieces of scientific knowledge.<br />
<br />
As they (The All Results Journals) go on publishing negative results, the newer generation of scholars will not waste their time and fund replicating the similar studies and finding the same results (negative in this case). Negative results are high-level pieces of expertise that needs to be published. Some authors have pointed out elsewhere the problem of publication bias, a well-known problem in clinical documents, in which affirmative results have a better chance of being published, are published earlier, and are published in journals with larger impact factors. So this is a serious trouble.<br />
<br />
As specialists we attempt for remarkable findings within biological systems that will further widen our knowledge of the human condition, aging, cancer, autoimmunity, etc. From time to time the pieces just don't add up. These <a href="http://arjournals.com/ojs/index.php?journal=Biol&page=index">negative results in Biology</a> drive our next step at the bench but are infrequently published. Bringing to light these types of observations under peer review will enhance our civilization for the greater good. If you make available a manuscript about what didn't work you can build on the complications of others rather than simply repeat them. Instead of three steps forward and two steps back, Science could just move forward.<br />
<br />
In Cancer studies or chemotherapeutic development, for example, the tendency is to publish data showing effectiveness. We offer that inefficacy could also be of good importance to the scientific community. What components failed, in what types of cancer and why; the latter question albeit hard to solve. One could envision the same trends emerging from this type of work in terms of gene expression profiling, proteomics and biomarkers. Agent X will not be highly effective in cancer Y because of overexpression of biomarker Z. A manuscript focused on the inefficacy of a particular chemotherapeutic agent could help in moving the cancer biology field forward by offering a discussion forum to share with the greater cancer research community the same negative findings that may have made a contribution to the development of a highly successful agent.<br />
<br />
Basically the tip of the iceberg are being published in Science; only positive results. Initiatives like The All Results Journals:Chem concentrate on publishing rigorously performed <a href="http://arjournals.com/ojs/index.php?journal=Chem&page=index">chemical studies generating negative results.</a> These journals are trying to get out the water the complete iceberg (the entire study, showing "All Results" of the author, the complete image of his research topic, the real job done, not only the positive outcomes). Researchers have the commitment to study Nature and document everything, and this includes documenting the negative results. Even more: the research projects might have been funded by nation agencies, and that means public funds... In part, funding agencies have some liability; they should also push the publishing of all results (specially negative results) not only positive.<br />
<div><br />
</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4390501983607152799.post-75349545221122268162011-02-21T19:46:00.000-08:002011-02-21T19:46:00.152-08:00The importance of publishing negative resultsEveryone likes positive results. But the fact is that they are the lower, especially when you talk about Science. Many scientific journals skew towards only publishing "positive" data; that is, data that easily proves a theory. Others, like The All Results Journals are the home for negative data: experimental documents of hypotheses that happen not to be true, or other experiments that do not lead to an advance of a definite theorem but are, nonetheless, a true rendering of that experiment. For example, if a researcher set up a cell-based experiment and the experiment did not work in a particular set of conditions, it would be very useful for other investigators to know this (to avoid time and money wasting and better planning). There is a huge unexploited resource of experimental information locked away in laboratory notebooks that could be of great service to the scientific network at large. Many experiments don't succeed to produce results or expected discoveries. This high percentage of "failed" research can still generate high quality data. The main target of The All Results Journals is to recover and publish these significant pieces of scientific knowledge.<br />
<br />
As they (The All Results Journals) carry on <a href="http://www.arjournals.com/">publishing negative results</a>, the newer generation of researchers will not waste their time and revenue repeating the same studies and finding the same results (negative in this case). Negative results are high-level pieces of wisdom that is deserving to be presented. Some authors have pointed out elsewhere the problem of publication bias, a well-known situation in clinical documents, in which affirmative results have a better chance of being published, are published faster, and are published in journals with greater impact factors. So this is a serious drawback.<br />
<br />
As scientists we strive for remarkable observations within biological systems that will further boost our understanding of the human condition, aging, cancer, autoimmunity, etc. Occasionally the pieces just don't add up. These <a href="http://arjournals.com/ojs/index.php?journal=Biol&page=index">negative results in Biology </a>drive our next step at the bench but are barely ever published. Bringing to light these types of insights under peer review will strengthen our world for the greater good. If you make readily available a paper about what didn't work you can build on the pit falls of others rather than simply repeat them. Instead of three steps forward and two steps back, Science could just move forward.<br />
<br />
In Cancer studies or chemotherapeutic development, for example, the pattern is to publish data showing efficacy. We suggest that inefficacy could also be of remarkable value to the scientific community. What medications failed, in what types of cancer and why; the latter question albeit hard to solve. One could envision the same trends emerging from this type of work in terms of gene expression profiling, proteomics and biomarkers. Agent X will not be successful in cancer Y because of overexpression of biomarker Z. A manuscript focused on the inefficacy of a particular chemotherapeutic compound could help out in moving the cancer biology field forward by offering a community forum to share with the increasing cancer research community the same negative findings that may have lead to the development of a completely useful agent.<br />
<br />
Basically the tip of the iceberg are being published in Science; only positive results. Initiatives like The All Results Journals:Chem concentrate on publishing carefully performed<a href="http://arjournals.com/ojs/index.php?journal=Chem&page=index"> chemical tests delivering negative results.</a> These journals are trying to get out the water the complete iceberg (the total study, showing "All Results" of the author, the complete picture of his research topic, the real job done, not only the positive outcomes). Scientists have the responsibility to study Nature and inform everything, and this includes documenting the negative studies. Even more: the research projects might have been funded by nation agencies, and that implies public funds... In part, funding agencies have some commitment; they should also foster the publishing of all results (specially negative results) not only positive.<br />
<div><br />
</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4390501983607152799.post-71471442543501696732011-02-20T19:45:00.000-08:002011-02-20T19:45:00.888-08:00The importance of publishing negative resultsEveryone likes positive results. But the fact is that they are the lower, especially when you talk about Science. Many scientific journals skew towards only publishing "positive" data; that is, data that successfully proves a premise. Others, like The All Results Journals are the<a href="http://www.arjournals.com/"> home for negative data</a>: experimental evidence of hypotheses that happen not to be true, or other experiments that do not result to an advance of a individual hypothesis but are, still, a true rendering of that research. For example, if a researcher set up a cell-based experiment and the experiment did not work in a specified set of conditions, it would be very practical for other investigators to know this (to avoid time and money wasting and better planning). There is a huge untapped resource of experimental data confined in laboratory notebooks that could be of great service to the scientific network at large. Many experiments fail to produce results or expected discoveries. This high amount of "failed" research can still generate high quality data. The main goal of The All Results Journals is to recover and publish these treasured pieces of scientific material.<br />
<br />
As they (The All Results Journals) go on publishing negative results, the newest generation of experts will not spend their time and Funds duplicating the equivalent studies and finding the same results (negative in this case). Negative results are high-level pieces of expertise that needs to be published. Some authors have pointed out elsewhere the problem of publication bias, a well-known problem in clinical publications, in which optimistic results have a better chance of being published, are published sooner, and are published in journals with larger impact factors. So this is a serious drawback.<br />
<br />
As specialists we struggle for remarkable analysis within biological systems that will further expand our knowledge of the human condition, aging, cancer, autoimmunity, etc. From time to time the pieces just don't add up. These<a href="http://arjournals.com/ojs/index.php?journal=Biol&page=index"> negative results in Biology </a>move our next step at the bench but are rarely published. Bringing to light these types of observations under peer review will improve our modern society for the greater good. If you make available a manuscript about what didn't work you can build on the complications of others rather than simply repeat them. As an alternative of three steps forward and two steps back, Science could just move forward.<br />
<br />
In Cancer studies or chemotherapeutic development, for example, the tendency is to publish data showing efficacy. We propose that inefficacy could also be of good relevance to the scientific community. What components failed, in what types of cancer and why; the latter question albeit very hard to resolve. One could visualize the same tendencies emerging from this type of work in terms of gene expression profiling, proteomics and biomarkers. Agent X will not be powerful in cancer Y because of overexpression of biomarker Z. A paper focused on the inefficacy of a particular chemotherapeutic compound could help in moving the cancer biology field forward by offering a community forum to share with the more significant cancer research community the same negative findings that may have made a contribution to the development of a strongly potent agent.<br />
<br />
Just the tip of the iceberg are being published in Science; only positive results. Initiatives like The All Results Journals:Chem concentrate on publishing rigorously executed<a href="http://arjournals.com/ojs/index.php?journal=Chem&page=index"> chemical studies producing negative results. </a>These journals are trying to get out the water the complete iceberg (the total study, showing "All Results" of the scientist, the complete picture of his research topic, the real job done, not only the positive outcomes). Researchers have the responsibility to study Nature and inform all, and this includes reporting the negative findings. Even more: the research projects might have been funded by government agencies, and that implies public financial resources... In part, funding agencies have some commitment; they should also foster the publishing of all results (specially negative results) not only positive.<br />
<div><br />
</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4390501983607152799.post-6885404318968820112011-02-19T19:43:00.000-08:002011-02-19T19:43:00.730-08:00The importance of publishing negative resultsEverybody likes positive results. But the fact is that they are the less, especially when you talk about Science. Many scientific journals skew towards only publishing "positive" data; that is, data that easily proves a hypothesis. Others, like The All Results Journals are the home for negative data: experimental certification of hypotheses that become not to be true, or other experiments that do not contribute to an advance of a definite theorem but are, nevertheless, a true rendering of that research. For example, if a researcher set up a cell-based experiment and the experiment did not work in a particular set of conditions, it would be very beneficial for other experts to know this (to avoid time and money wasting and better planning). There is a huge available resource of experimental data confined in laboratory notebooks that could be of great service to the scientific network at large. Many experiments don't succeed to produce results or expected discoveries. This high volume of "failed" research can still generate high quality data. The main objective of The All Results Journals is to recover and publish these treasured pieces of scientific information.<br />
<br />
As they (The All Results Journals) continue <a href="http://www.arjournals.com/">publishing negative results</a>, the newer generation of scientists will not misuse their time and Funds replicating the same studies and finding the same results (negative in this case). Negative results are high-level pieces of wisdom that is worthy to be published. Some authors have pointed out elsewhere the problem of publication bias, a well-known situation in clinical documents, in which affirmative results have a better chance of being published, are published quicker, and are published in journals with greater impact factors. So this is a real trouble.<br />
<br />
As researchers we attempt for remarkable insights within biological systems that will further expand our understanding of the human condition, maturing, cancer, autoimmunity, etc. Sometimes the components just don't add up. These <a href="http://arjournals.com/ojs/index.php?journal=Biol&page=index">negative results in Biology</a> push our next step at the bench but are barely ever published. Bringing to light these types of finding under peer review will boost our world for the greater good. If you make readily available a paper about what didn't work you can build on the pit falls of others rather than simply duplicate them. Instead of three steps forward and two steps back, Science could just move forward.<br />
<br />
In Cancer research or chemotherapeutic development, for example, the trend is to publish data showing potency. We propose that inefficacy could also be of great relevance to the scientific community. What medications failed, in what types of cancer and why; the latter question albeit very hard to answer. One could consider the same trends emerging from this this sort of work in terms of gene expression profiling, proteomics and biomarkers. Agent X will not be powerful in cancer Y because of overexpression of biomarker Z. A manuscript focused on the inefficacy of a particular chemotherapeutic chemical could help out in moving the cancer biology field forward by offering a discussion forum to share with the greater cancer research community the same negative findings that may have contributed to the development of a strongly efficient agent.<br />
<br />
Just the tip of the iceberg are being published in Science; only positive results. Initiatives like The All Results Journals:Chem concentrate on publishing rigorously carried out<a href="http://arjournals.com/ojs/index.php?journal=Chem&page=index"> chemical tests producing negative results.</a> These journals are trying to get out the water the complete iceberg (the whole study, showing "All Results" of the author, the complete image of his research topic, the real job done, not only the positive outcomes). Researchers have the commitment to study Nature and document everything, and this includes reporting the negative results. Even more: the research projects might have been funded by government agencies, and that implies public financial resources... In part, funding agencies have some responsibility; they should also stimulate the publishing of all results (specially negative results) not only positive.<br />
<div><br />
</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4390501983607152799.post-1305647865961580452011-02-18T19:42:00.000-08:002011-02-18T19:42:00.569-08:00The importance of publishing negative resultsEveryone likes positive results. But the fact is that they are the fewer, especially when you talk about Science. Many scientific journals skew towards only publishing "positive" data; that is, data that comfortably proves a theory. Others, like The All Results Journals are the home for negative data: experimental documents of hypotheses that come out not to be true, or other experiments that do not contribute to an advance of a particular theory but are, nonetheless, a true rendering of that trial. For example, if a researcher set up a cell-based experiment and the experiment did not work in a unique set of conditions, it would be very significant for other researchers to know this (to avoid time and money wasting and better planning). There is a huge untapped resource of experimental facts locked away in laboratory notebooks that could be of great service to the scientific network at large. Many <a href="http://www.arjournals.com/">experiments fail to produce results </a>or expected discoveries. This high volume of "failed" research can still generate high quality knowledge. The main objective of The All Results Journals is to recover and publish these valuable pieces of scientific information.<br />
<br />
As they (The All Results Journals) carry on publishing negative results, the newest generation of scholars will not spend their time and funding duplicating the same studies and finding the same results (negative in this case). Negative results are high-level pieces of wisdom that needs to be published. Some authors have pointed out elsewhere the problem of publication bias, a well-known phenomenon in clinical documents, in which affirmative results have a better chance of being published, are published earlier, and are published in journals with larger impact factors. So this is a serious trouble.<br />
<br />
As researchers we attempt for remarkable analysis within biological systems that will further widen our awareness of the human condition, maturing, cancer, autoimmunity, etc. Sometimes the pieces just don't add up. These <a href="http://arjournals.com/ojs/index.php?journal=Biol&page=index">negative results in Biology</a> push our next step at the bench but are rarely published. Bringing to light these types of observations under peer review will strengthen our world for the greater good. If you make readily available a article about what didn't work you can build on the pit falls of others rather than simply duplicate them. As an alternative of three steps forward and two steps back, Science could just move forward.<br />
<br />
In Cancer research or chemotherapeutic development, for example, the trend is to publish data showing potency. We propose that inefficacy could also be of remarkable relevance to the scientific community. What medications failed, in what types of cancer and why; the latter question albeit hard to explain. One could consider the same trends emerging from this this sort of work in terms of gene expression profiling, proteomics and biomarkers. Agent X will not be highly effective in cancer Y because of overexpression of biomarker Z. A paper focused on the inefficacy of a particular chemotherapeutic chemical could help out in moving the cancer biology field forward by offering a forum to share with the increasing cancer research community the same negative findings that may have contributed to the development of a very powerful agent.<br />
<br />
Just the tip of the iceberg are being published in Science; only positive results. Initiatives like The All Results Journals:Chem focus on publishing rigorously performed <a href="http://arjournals.com/ojs/index.php?journal=Chem&page=index">chemical studies producing negative results</a>. These journals are trying to get out the water the complete iceberg (the total study, showing "All Results" of the author, the complete image of his research topic, the real job done, not only the positive outcomes). Researchers have the commitment to study Nature and describe all, and this includes documenting the negative results. Even more: the research projects might have been funded by government agencies, and that implies public funds... In part, funding agencies have some commitment; they should also push the publishing of all results (specially negative results) not only positive.<br />
<div><br />
</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4390501983607152799.post-56419765497036052552011-02-17T19:40:00.000-08:002011-02-17T19:40:00.510-08:00The importance of publishing negative resultsAll of us likes positive results. But the fact is that they are the lower, especially when you talk about Science. Many scientific journals skew towards only publishing "positive" data; that is, data that comfortably proves a hypothesis. Others, like <a href="http://www.arjournals.com/">The All Results Journals</a> are the home for negative data: experimental proof of hypotheses that result not to be true, or other experiments that do not lead to an advance of a definite hypothesis but are, nevertheless, a true rendering of that research. For example, if a researcher set up a cell-based experiment and the experiment did not work in a specified set of conditions, it would be very constructive for other scientists to know this (to avoid time and money wasting and better planning). There is a huge unexploited resource of experimental data locked away in laboratory notebooks that could be of great service to the scientific society at large. Many experiments don't succeed to produce results or expected discoveries. This high number of "failed" research can still generate high quality data. The main purpose of The All Results Journals is to recover and publish these precious pieces of scientific material.<br />
<br />
As they (The All Results Journals) continue publishing negative results, the newer generation of scientists will not misuse their time and money duplicating the similar studies and finding the same results (negative in this case). Negative results are high-level pieces of wisdom that merits to be published. Some authors have pointed out elsewhere the problem of publication bias, a well-known situation in clinical literature, in which affirmative results have a better chance of being published, are published earlier, and are published in journals with greater impact factors. So this is a real drawback.<br />
<br />
As scientists we struggle for remarkable analysis within biological systems that will further grow our comprehension of the human condition, aging, cancer, autoimmunity, etc. Occasionally the pieces just don't add up. These <a href="http://arjournals.com/ojs/index.php?journal=Biol&page=index">negative results in Biology</a> move our next step at the bench but are hardly ever published. Bringing to light these types of insights under peer review will boost our society for the greater good. If you make readily available a manuscript about what didn't work you can build on the problems of others rather than simply repeat them. Alternatively of three steps forward and two steps back, Science could just move forward.<br />
<br />
In Cancer research or chemotherapeutic development, for example, the trend is to publish data showing effectiveness. We suggest that inefficacy could also be of great significance to the scientific community. What medications failed, in what types of cancer and why; the latter question albeit difficult to resolve. One could imagine the same tendencies emerging from this type of work in terms of gene expression profiling, proteomics and biomarkers. Agent X will not be successful in cancer Y because of overexpression of biomarker Z. A manuscript focused on the inefficacy of a particular chemotherapeutic agent could assist in moving the cancer biology field forward by offering a forum to share with the increasing cancer research community the same negative findings that may have made a contribution to the development of a very successful agent.<br />
<br />
Just the tip of the iceberg are being published in Science; only positive results. Initiatives like The All Results Journals:Chem target publishing rigorously performed <a href="http://arjournals.com/ojs/index.php?journal=Chem&page=index">chemical studies yielding negative results</a>. These journals are trying to get out the water the complete iceberg (the total study, showing "All Results" of the scientist, the complete picture of his research topic, the real job done, not only the positive outcomes). Researchers have the responsibility to study Nature and describe everything, and this includes reporting the negative findings. Even more: the research projects might have been funded by public agencies, and that implies public funds... In part, funding agencies have some commitment; they should also stimulate the publishing of all results (specially negative results) not only positive.<br />
<div><br />
</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4390501983607152799.post-431314376748568132011-02-16T19:38:00.000-08:002011-02-16T19:38:00.581-08:00The importance of publishing negative resultsEveryone likes positive results. But the fact is that they are the less, especially when you talk about Science. Many scientific journals bias towards only publishing "positive" data; that is, data that more easily proves a hypothesis. Others, like <a href="http://www.arjournals.com/">The All Results Journals</a> are the home for negative data: experimental documents of hypotheses that end up not to be true, or other experiments that do not result to an advance of a specific theorem but are, nevertheless, a true rendering of that research. For example, if a researcher set up a cell-based experiment and the experiment did not work in a unique set of conditions, it would be very significant for other investigators to know this (to avoid time and money wasting and better planning). There is a huge unused resource of experimental information convicted in laboratory notebooks that could be of great service to the scientific society at large. Many experiments fail to produce results or expected discoveries. This high portion of "failed" research can still generate high quality information. The main objective of The All Results Journals is to recover and publish these precious pieces of scientific material.<br />
<br />
As they (The All Results Journals) keep going publishing negative results, the newest generation of experts will not misuse their time and Funds replicating the same studies and finding the same results (negative in this case). Negative results are high-level pieces of wisdom that needs to be presented. Some authors have pointed out elsewhere the problem of publication bias, a well-known situation in clinical writings, in which optimistic results have a better chance of being published, are published faster, and are published in journals with larger impact factors. So this is a serious trouble.<br />
<br />
As scientists we attempt for remarkable analysis within biological systems that will further broaden our knowledge of the human condition, aging, cancer, autoimmunity, etc. From time to time the pieces just don't add up. These <a href="http://arjournals.com/ojs/index.php?journal=Biol&page=index">negative results in Biology</a> force our next step at the bench but are hardly ever published. Bringing to light these types of finding under peer review will improve our modern society for the greater good. If you make available a paper about what didn't work you can build on the problems of others rather than simply repeat them. Alternatively of three steps forward and two steps back, Science could just move forward.<br />
<br />
In Cancer research or chemotherapeutic development, for example, the trend is to publish data showing effectiveness. We offer that inefficacy could also be of great relevance to the scientific community. What agents failed, in what types of cancer and why; the latter question albeit very difficult to solve. One could visualize the same tendencies emerging from this type of work in terms of gene expression profiling, proteomics and biomarkers. Agent X will not be highly effective in cancer Y because of overexpression of biomarker Z. A paper focused on the inefficacy of a particular chemotherapeutic agent could assist in moving the cancer biology field forward by offering a discussion forum to share with the greater cancer research community the same negative findings that may have contributed to the development of a strongly efficient agent.<br />
<br />
Just the tip of the iceberg are being published in Science; only positive results. Initiatives like The All Results Journals:Chem concentrate on publishing rigorously carried out <a href="http://arjournals.com/ojs/index.php?journal=Chem&page=index">chemical studies generating negative results.</a> These journals are trying to get out the water the complete iceberg (the full study, showing "All Results" of the author, the complete picture of his research topic, the real job done, not only the positive outcomes). Researchers have the commitment to study Nature and inform everything, and this includes reporting the negative findings. Even more: the research projects might have been funded by government agencies, and that implies public funds... In part, funding agencies have some liability; they should also encourage the publishing of all results (specially negative results) not only positive.<br />
<div><br />
</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4390501983607152799.post-31550322664491819382011-02-15T19:37:00.000-08:002011-02-15T19:37:00.344-08:00The importance of publishing negative resultsAll of us likes positive results. But the fact is that they are the lower, especially when you talk about Science. Many scientific journals bias towards only publishing "positive" data; that is, data that easily proves a a priori principle. Others, like <a href="http://www.arjournals.com/">The All Results Journals </a>are the home for negative data: experimental evidence of hypotheses that turn out not to be true, or other experiments that do not result to an advance of a definite hypothesis but are, nevertheless, a true rendering of that research. For example, if a researcher set up a cell-based experiment and the experiment did not work in a precise set of conditions, it would be very good for other scientists to know this (to avoid time and money wasting and better planning). There is a huge unused resource of experimental knowledge locked away in laboratory notebooks that could be of great service to the scientific society at large. Many experiments don't succeed to produce results or expected discoveries. This high percentage of "failed" research can still generate high quality knowledge. The main aspiration of The All Results Journals is to recover and publish these significant pieces of scientific material.<br />
<br />
As they (The All Results Journals) continue publishing negative results, the newer generation of doctors will not misuse their time and money duplicating the same studies and finding the same results (negative in this case). Negative results are high-level pieces of data that is worthy to be published. Some authors have pointed out elsewhere the problem of publication bias, a well-known problem in clinical literature, in which optimistic results have a better chance of being published, are published faster, and are published in journals with bigger impact factors. So this is a serious problem.<br />
<br />
As researchers we struggle for remarkable insights within biological systems that will further grow our comprehension of the human condition, maturing, cancer, autoimmunity, etc. Sometimes the components just don't add up. These <a href="http://arjournals.com/ojs/index.php?journal=Biol&page=index">negative results in Biology</a> drive our next step at the bench but are hardly ever published. Bringing to light these types of observations under peer review will improve our civilization for the greater good. If you make accessible a manuscript about what didn't work you can build on the screw ups of others rather than simply reduplicate them. Alternatively of three steps forward and two steps back, Science could just move forward.<br />
<br />
In Cancer research or chemotherapeutic development, for example, the tendency is to publish data showing potency. We propose that inefficacy could also be of great value to the scientific community. What components failed, in what types of cancer and why; the latter question albeit very difficult to answer. One could consider the same trends emerging from this type of work in terms of gene expression profiling, proteomics and biomarkers. Agent X will not be highly effective in cancer Y because of overexpression of biomarker Z. A manuscript focused on the inefficacy of a particular chemotherapeutic agent could assist in moving the cancer biology field forward by offering a forum to share with the more significant cancer research community the same negative findings that may have contributed to the development of a extremely potent agent.<br />
<br />
Basically the tip of the iceberg are being published in Science; only positive results. Initiatives like The All Results Journals:Chem target publishing rigorously performed<a href="http://arjournals.com/ojs/index.php?journal=Chem&page=index"> chemical tests generating negative results. </a>These journals are trying to get out the water the complete iceberg (the complete study, showing "All Results" of the author, the complete picture of his research topic, the real job done, not only the positive outcomes). Scientific researchers have the duty to study Nature and describe all, and this includes documenting the negative results. Even more: the research projects might have been funded by government agencies, and that implies public financial resources... In part, funding agencies have some commitment; they should also support the publishing of all results (specially negative results) not only positive.<br />
<div><br />
</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4390501983607152799.post-35311007608700852752011-02-14T19:35:00.000-08:002011-02-14T19:35:00.368-08:00The importance of publishing negative resultsEveryone likes positive results. But the fact is that they are the fewer, especially when you talk about Science. Many scientific journals skew towards only publishing "positive" data; that is, data that more easily proves a hypothesis. Others, like <a href="http://www.arjournals.com/">The All Results Journals</a> are the home for negative data: experimental evidence of hypotheses that end up not to be true, or other experiments that do not lead to an advance of a particular hypothesis but are, nevertheless, a true rendering of that trial. For example, if a researcher set up a cell-based experiment and the experiment did not work in a specified set of conditions, it would be very beneficial for other scientists to know this (to avoid time and money wasting and better planning). There is a huge unused resource of experimental knowledge secured in laboratory notebooks that could be of great service to the scientific family at large. Many experiments fail to produce results or expected discoveries. This high volume of "failed" research can still generate high quality data. The main target of The All Results Journals is to recover and publish these priceless pieces of scientific knowledge.<br />
<br />
As they (The All Results Journals) continue publishing negative results, the most recent generation of scientists will not spend their time and revenue repeating the equivalent studies and finding the same results (negative in this case). Negative results are high-level pieces of knowledge that is worthy to be presented. Some authors have pointed out elsewhere the problem of publication bias, a well-known situation in clinical publications, in which affirmative results have a better chance of being published, are published faster, and are published in journals with bigger impact factors. So this is a real problem.<br />
<br />
As researchers we struggle for remarkable findings within biological systems that will further enlarge our comprehension of the human condition, maturing, cancer, autoimmunity, etc. Occasionally the pieces just don't add up. These <a href="http://arjournals.com/ojs/index.php?journal=Biol&page=index">negative results in Biology</a> drive our next step at the bench but are hardly ever published. Bringing to light these types of observations under peer review will enhance our modern society for the greater good. If you make readily available a manuscript about what didn't work you can build on the mistakes of others rather than simply duplicate them. Alternatively of three steps forward and two steps back, Science could just move forward.<br />
<br />
In Cancer studies or chemotherapeutic development, for example, the tendency is to publish data showing efficacy. We offer that inefficacy could also be of remarkable relevance to the scientific community. What medicines failed, in what types of cancer and why; the latter question albeit difficult to solve. One could visualize the same trends emerging from this this sort of work in terms of gene expression profiling, proteomics and biomarkers. Agent X will not be good in cancer Y because of overexpression of biomarker Z. A paper focused on the inefficacy of a particular chemotherapeutic chemical could assist in moving the cancer biology field forward by offering a community forum to share with the increasing cancer research community the same negative findings that may have contributed to the development of a completely powerful agent.<br />
<br />
Basically the tip of the iceberg are being published in Science; only positive results. Projects like The All Results Journals:Chem concentrate on publishing carefully carried out<a href="http://arjournals.com/ojs/index.php?journal=Chem&page=index"> chemical tests producing negative results.</a> These journals are trying to get out the water the complete iceberg (the entire study, showing "All Results" of the author, the complete image of his research topic, the real job done, not only the positive outcomes). Scientists have the duty to study Nature and document everything, and this includes reporting the negative studies. Even more: the research projects might have been funded by public agencies, and that means public money... In part, funding agencies have some liability; they should also encourage the publishing of all results (specially negative results) not only positive.<br />
<div><br />
</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4390501983607152799.post-31340808337430119982011-02-13T19:33:00.000-08:002011-02-13T19:33:00.284-08:00The importance of publishing negative resultsAll of us likes positive results. But the fact is that they are the lower, especially when you talk about Science. Many scientific journals skew towards only publishing "positive" data; that is, data that comfortably proves a a priori principle. Others, like<a href="http://www.arjournals.com/"> The All Results Journals </a>are the home for negative data: experimental documentation of hypotheses that turn out not to be true, or other experiments that do not result to an advance of a individual hypothesis but are, on the other hand, a true rendering of that experiment. For example, if a researcher set up a cell-based experiment and the experiment did not work in a unique set of conditions, it would be very practical for other investigators to know this (to avoid time and money wasting and better planning). There is a huge unexploited resource of experimental knowledge locked up in laboratory notebooks that could be of great service to the scientific network at large. Many experiments don't succeed to produce results or expected discoveries. This high portion of "failed" research can still generate high quality knowledge. The main aspiration of The All Results Journals is to recover and publish these significant pieces of scientific material.<br />
<br />
As they (The All Results Journals) go on publishing negative results, the newer generation of specialists will not waste their time and fund replicating the similar studies and finding the same results (negative in this case). Negative results are high-level pieces of wisdom that needs to be presented. Some authors have pointed out elsewhere the problem of publication bias, a well-known situation in clinical publications, in which positive results have a better chance of being published, are published faster, and are published in journals with higher impact factors. So this is a serious trouble.<br />
<br />
As specialists we attempt for remarkable findings within biological systems that will further magnify our understanding of the human condition, aging, cancer, autoimmunity, etc. Sometimes the pieces just don't add up. These <a href="http://arjournals.com/ojs/index.php?journal=Biol&page=index">negative results in Biology</a> move our next step at the bench but are hardly ever published. Bringing to light these types of insights under peer review will strengthen our way of life for the greater good. If you make accessible a manuscript about what didn't work you can build on the screw ups of others rather than simply duplicate them. Instead of three steps forward and two steps back, Science could just move forward.<br />
<br />
In Cancer research or chemotherapeutic development, for example, the trend is to publish data showing potency. We offer that inefficacy could also be of great value to the scientific community. What medications failed, in what types of cancer and why; the latter question albeit very difficult to solve. One could imagine the same tendencies emerging from this this sort of work in terms of gene expression profiling, proteomics and biomarkers. Agent X will not be powerful in cancer Y because of overexpression of biomarker Z. A manuscript focused on the inefficacy of a particular chemotherapeutic chemical could assist in moving the cancer biology field forward by offering a forum to share with the greater cancer research community the same negative findings that may have lead to the development of a highly efficient agent.<br />
<br />
Basically the tip of the iceberg are being published in Science; only positive results. Initiatives like The All Results Journals:Chem concentrate on publishing carefully executed<a href="http://arjournals.com/ojs/index.php?journal=Chem&page=index"> chemical studies producing negative results.</a> These journals are trying to get out the water the complete iceberg (the total study, showing "All Results" of the scientist, the complete picture of his research topic, the real job done, not only the positive outcomes). Scientists have the duty to study Nature and document all, and this includes reporting the negative conclusions. Even more: the research projects might have been funded by government agencies, and that implies public financial resources... In part, funding agencies have some commitment; they should also foster the publishing of all results (specially negative results) not only positive.<br />
<div><br />
</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4390501983607152799.post-32838713896631398762011-02-12T19:33:00.000-08:002011-02-12T19:33:18.201-08:00The importance of publishing negative resultsEveryone likes positive results. But the fact is that they are the lower, especially when you talk about Science. Many scientific journals skew towards only publishing "positive" data; that is, data that easily proves a hypothesis. Others, like <a href="http://www.arjournals.com/">The All Results Journals</a> are the home for negative data: experimental documentation of hypotheses that End up not to be true, or other experiments that do not lead to an advance of a particular theorem but are, on the other hand, a true rendering of that trial. For example, if a researcher set up a cell-based experiment and the experiment did not work in a specified set of conditions, it would be very good for other scientists to know this (to avoid time and money wasting and better planning). There is a huge unexploited resource of experimental information locked up in laboratory notebooks that could be of great service to the scientific family at large. Many experiments fail to produce results or expected discoveries. This high percentage of "failed" research can still generate high quality wisdom. The main target of The All Results Journals is to recover and publish these valuable pieces of scientific material.<br />
<br />
As they (The All Results Journals) carry on publishing negative results, the faster growing generation of doctors will not waste their time and money replicating the same studies and finding the same results (negative in this case). Negative results are high-level pieces of know-how that deserves to be published. Some authors have pointed out elsewhere the problem of publication bias, a well-known problem in clinical documents, in which optimistic results have a better chance of being published, are published faster, and are published in journals with larger impact factors. So this is a real problem.<br />
<br />
As specialists we struggle for remarkable findings within biological systems that will further magnify our awareness of the human condition, aging, cancer, autoimmunity, etc. Sometimes the pieces just don't add up. These<a href="http://arjournals.com/ojs/index.php?journal=Biol&page=index"> negative results in Biology</a> drive our next step at the bench but are hardly ever published. Bringing to light these types of observations under peer review will improve our world for the greater good. If you make accessible a article about what didn't work you can build on the pit falls of others rather than simply reduplicate them. Alternatively of three steps forward and two steps back, Science could just move forward.<br />
<br />
In Cancer studies or chemotherapeutic development, for example, the pattern is to publish data showing efficacy. We suggest that inefficacy could also be of remarkable value to the scientific community. What agents failed, in what types of cancer and why; the latter question albeit very difficult to solve. One could imagine the same trends emerging from this type of work in terms of gene expression profiling, proteomics and biomarkers. Agent X will not be highly effective in cancer Y because of overexpression of biomarker Z. A manuscript focused on the inefficacy of a particular chemotherapeutic chemical could help in moving the cancer biology field forward by offering a community forum to share with the increasing cancer research community the same negative findings that may have lead to the development of a very successful agent.<br />
<br />
Just the tip of the iceberg are being published in Science; only positive results. Initiatives like The All Results Journals:Chem concentrate on publishing rigorously executed <a href="http://arjournals.com/ojs/index.php?journal=Chem&page=index">chemical studies delivering negative results</a>. These journals are trying to get out the water the complete iceberg (the entire study, showing "All Results" of the author, the complete picture of his research topic, the real job done, not only the positive outcomes). Scientists have the duty to study Nature and document all, and this includes documenting the negative findings. Even more: the research projects might have been funded by nation agencies, and that implies public revenue... In part, funding agencies have some liability; they should also foster the publishing of all results (specially negative results) not only positive.<br />
<div><br />
</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4390501983607152799.post-46728307390106209872010-11-07T14:43:00.000-08:002010-11-07T14:43:10.034-08:00Future prospects of enzyme engineeringEnzyme engineering is the recent technology growing rapidly due to its higher application in a lot of fields and due to having bright and clear future vision. A most exciting development over the last few years is the application of genetic engineering techniques to enzyme technology. There are a number of properties which may be improved or altered by genetic engineering including the yield and kinetics of the enzyme, the ease of downstream processing and various safety aspects. Enzymes from dangerous or unapproved microorganisms and from slow-growing or limited plant or animal tissue may be cloned into safe high-production microorganisms. The amount of enzyme produced by a microorganism may be increased by increasing the number of gene copies that code for it. For example; The engineered cells, aided by the plasmid amplification at around 50 copies per cell, produce penicillin – G – Amidase constitutively and in considerably higher quantities than does the fully induced parental strain. Such increased yields are economically relevant not just for the increased volumetric productivity but also because of reduced downstream processing costs, the resulting crude enzyme being that much purer. New enzyme structures may be designed and produced in order to improve on existing enzymes or create new activities. Much protein engineering has been directed at Subtilisin (from Bacillus amyloliquefaciens), the principal enzyme in the detergent enzyme preparation, Alcalase. This has been aimed at the improvement of its activity in detergents by stabilizing it at even higher temperatures, pH and oxidant strength. A number of possibilities now exist for the construction of artificial enzymes. These are generally synthetic polymers or oligomers with enzyme-like activities, often called synzymes. Enzymes can be immobilized i.e., an enzyme can be linked to an inert support material without loss of activity which facilitates reuse and recycling of the enzyme.Use of engineered enzyme to form biosensor for the analytical use is also recent activity among the developed countries. Some enzymes make use in diseases diagnosis so they can be genetically engineered to make the task easier. Thus it is obvious that there is huge scope of the enzyme technology in the future as well as in present.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4390501983607152799.post-89281845745156213552010-11-07T14:37:00.000-08:002010-11-07T14:37:06.172-08:00The Twelve Principles Of Green ChemistryThough Green chemistry is also known as environmentally benign chemistry, or sustainable chemistry, perhaps the most widely accepted definition of green chemistry is the one offered by chemists Paul Anastas and John Warner, who defined green chemistry as the design of chemical products and processes that reduce or eliminate the use and generation of hazardous substances.<br />
<br />
Now the Pollution Prevention Acts set the stage for green chemistry wherein focus is on the prevention of pollution at the source rather than the treatment of pollutants after they are formed. This goal became a formal objective of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1991. Anastas coined the term "green chemistry" the same year. Two of the most prominent and early advocates of green chemistry were Kenneth Hancock of the National Science Foundation (NSF) and Joe Breen, who after twenty years of service at the EPA became the first director of the Green Chemistry Institute (GCI) during the late 1990s.<br />
<br />
Anastas and Warner formulated the twelve principles of green chemistry in 1998. These serve as guidelines for chemists seeking to lower the ecological footprint of the chemicals, they produce and the processes by which such chemicals are made. Starting in 1996, outstanding examples of green chemistry have been recognized in the United States each year by the Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge (PGCC) awards that are the only awards in chemistry which are bestowed at the presidential level.<br />
<br />
The EPA and the American Chemical Society (ACS) have played a major role in promoting research and development, as well as education, in green chemistry field. In 2000 the GCI became a partner of the ACS. Chemical societies around the globe have recognized the importance of green chemistry and promote it through journals, conferences, educational activities, and the formation of GCI chapters. There are GCI chapter affiliates all over the world.<br />
<br />
During the 1990s many industries began to earnestly adopt green chemistry and other sustainable practices. Forward-looking companies realized that the practice of green chemistry not only leads to environmental benefits, but also economic and social benefits. The combination of these three benefits is known as the "triple bottom line" and provides strong encouragement for businesses to develop sustainable products and processes. The following real-world examples of green chemistry represent the accomplishments of several winners of the PGCC awards. They illustrate how green chemistry impacts a wide array of fields including pharmaceuticals, pesticides, polymers, and many others.<br />
<br />
When chemists are considering a compound, they are concerned with the chemical, biological, and physical properties of this compound, and the method by which the compound is prepared or its synthesis. In order to focus greater attention on waste by-products that are formed during a synthesis, Barry Trost of Stanford University developed the concept of atom economy. This concept deals with the question: How many of the atoms of the reactants are incorporated into the final desired product and how many are wasted by incorporation into by-products? An example of the application of this concept may be discussed in the synthesis of ibuprofen. Concerns over the pollution of natural resources such as the valley in Zion National Park, Utah prompted the development of green chemistry in the 1990s.<br />
<br />
Ibuprofen is the active ingredient in many analgesic and inflammatory drugs. Beginning in the 1960s, ibuprofen was produced by a six-step synthesis with an atom economy of only 40 percent. This meant that less than half (40 percent) of the weight of all the atoms of the reactants were incorporated in the ibuprofen, and 60 percent were wasted in the formation of unwanted by-products. The annual production of approximately 30 million pounds of ibuprofen by this method resulted in over 40 million pounds of waste. But during the 1990s, the BHC Company developed a new synthesis of ibuprofen with an atom economy of 77 to 99 percent. This synthesis not only produces much less waste, it is also only a three-step process. A pharmaceutical company can thus produce more ibuprofen in less time and with less energy, which results in increased profits.<br />
<br />
Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) is one of the most well-known insecticides which during World War II saved thousands of Allied lives by killing disease-carrying insects, but during the 1960s the significant environmental damage caused by it was brought to the public's attention by Rachel Carson in Silent Spring (1962). As a result of the controversy generated by this book and other media coverage, the substance's use was banned in the United States in 1973. During the 1960s and 1970s organophosphates largely replaced organo-chlorine pesticides such as DDT. These pesticides rapidly degrade in the environment, but they are much more toxic to mammals. They are deadly to a wide array of insects and kill not only the target organism but also beneficial insects, such as bees and predatory beetles, and can also be harmful to humans.<br />
<br />
One approach to producing less environmentally harmful pesticides is to use compounds that destroy only the target organisms. One manufacturer, Rohm & Haas, has developed insecticides that mimic a hormone used only by molting insects. Insects that do not molt are not affected, leaving many beneficial insects unharmed. A more recent strategy for protecting plants from pests and disease involves the use of genetically altered plants. This method is controversial. Concerns include cross-pollination with unaltered plants and the entry of altered plants into the food supply.<br />
<br />
Another approach to protecting plants from pests and diseases is to activate their natural defense mechanism against pests or diseases. EDEN Bioscience Corporation has developed what is known as harpin technology. Harpin is a naturally occurring protein that is isolated from genetically altered bacteria. When applied to the leaves and stems of plants, this protein elicits their natural defense systems. The EPA has classified harpin as Category IV, which is reserved for materials with the lowest hazard potential. As an added benefit, harpin also stimulates plant growth.<br />
<br />
As known to us synthetic polymers or plastics are everywhere. They are used in cars, computers, planes, houses, eyeglasses, paints, bags, appliances, medical devices, carpets, tools, clothing, boats, batteries, and pipes. More than 60 million pounds of polymers are produced in the United States alone each year. The feed stocks that are used to produce these polymers are virtually all made from petroleum, a nonrenewable resource. Approximately 2.7 percent of all crude oil is used to generate chemical feeds tocks.<br />
<br />
In order to decrease human consumption of petroleum, chemists have investigated methods for producing polymers from renewable resources such as biomass. Polylactic acid (PLA) is a polymer of naturally occurring lactic acid (LA), and LA can be produced from the fermentation of corn. The goal is to eventually manufacture this polymer from waste biomass. Another advantage of PLA is that, unlike most synthetic polymers which litter the landscape and pack landfills, it is biodegradable. PLA can also be easily recycled by conversion back into LA. It can replace many petroleum-based polymers in products such as carpets, bags, cups, and textile fibers.<br />
<br />
The manufacture of computer chips requires excessive amounts of chemicals, water, and energy. Estimates indicate that the weight of chemicals and fossil fuels required to make a computer chip is 630 times the weight of the chip, as compared to the 2:1 ratio for the manufacture of an automobile. Scientists at the Los Alamos National Laboratory have developed a process that uses supercritical carbon dioxide in one of the steps in chip preparation, and it significantly reduces the quantities of chemicals, energy, and water needed to produce chips. Condensed phase carbon dioxide is also used as a solvent for the dry cleaning of clothes. Although carbon dioxide alone is not a good solvent for oils, waxes, and greases, the use of carbon dioxide in combination with a surfactant allows for the replacement of perchloroethylene (which is the solvent used most often to dry clean clothes, although it poses hazards to the environment and is a suspected human carcinogen).<br />
<br />
Some other examples of green chemistry are: taking chromium and arsenic, which are toxic, out of pressure-treated wood; using new less toxic chemicals for bleaching paper, substituting yttrium for lead in auto paint, and using enzymes instead of a strong base for the treatment of cotton fibers. In totality we may say that green chemistry reduces toxicity, minimizes waste, saves energy, and cuts down on the depletion of natural resources. It allows for advances in chemistry to occur in a much more environmentally benign way. In the future, when green chemistry is practiced by all chemists and all chemical related companies, the term "green chemistry" will ideally disappear as all chemistry becomes green. <br />
<br />
The so called ‘the twelve Principles of Green Chemistry; may be summarized as under:<br />
<br />
It is better to prevent waste than to treat or clean up waste after it is formed.<br />
Synthetic methods should be designed to maximize the incorporation of all materials used in the process in the final product.<br />
Wherever practical, synthetic methodologies should be designed to use and generate substances that possess little or no toxicity to human health and the environment.<br />
Chemical products should be designed to preserve efficacy of function while reducing toxicity.<br />
The use of auxiliary substances (e.g., solvents, separation agents, etc.) should be made unnecessary whenever possible and innocuous when used.<br />
Energy requirements should be recognized for their environmental and economic impacts and should be minimized. Synthetic methods should be conducted at ambient temperature and pressure.<br />
A raw material feedstock should be renewable rather than depleting whenever technically and economically practical.<br />
Unnecessary derivatization (blocking group, protection/deprotection, and temporary modification of physical/chemical processes) should be avoided whenever possible.<br />
Catalytic reagents (as selective as possible) are superior to stoichiometric reagents.<br />
10. Chemical products should be designed so that at the end of their function they do not persist in the environment and break down into innocuous degradation products.<br />
<br />
11. Analytical methodologies need to be further developed to allow for real-time in-process monitoring and control prior to the formation of hazardous substances.<br />
<br />
12. Substances and the form of a substance used in a chemical process should be chosen so as to minimize the potential for chemical accidents, including releases, explosions, and fires. <br />
<br />
(ArticlesBase SC #2074088)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Read more: http://www.articlesbase.com/education-articles/the-twelve-principles-of-green-chemistry039-2074088.html#ixzz14dfkd5Dt <br />
Under Creative Commons License: AttributionUnknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4390501983607152799.post-18886351568797981682010-11-07T14:25:00.000-08:002010-11-07T14:25:27.835-08:00Negative Results JournalsA new scientific <a href="http://www.arjournals.com/">journal publishes negative results</a>.<br />
<br />
While most scientific papers (and news stories) trumpet the latest discoveries, The All Results Journals is taking the opposite approach. This new journals publishes the results of experiments that failed to produce the expected discoveries. The concept of a "negative result" is sometimes difficult for a non-scientist to grasp. On the simplest level, a negative result is what happens when the experiment fails. You didn't do it right, or your chemicals didn't work properly. That's the sort of "failure" all of us remember from high-school chemistry class. But other times, it's an experiment that did work, but is being misinterpreted as a failure because it challenges the prevailing dogma.<br />
<br />
A classic example of this is the work of Nobel-winning geneticist, Barbara McClintock. When she started, the scientific community believed that DNA was rock-solid, and changed very slowly over time. But that was wrong. McClintock performed a series of experiments that seemed to show that genes are incredibly plastic. They can move around and even hop between organisms. Because her results challenged the accepted dogma and no one believed that DNA was so malleable, McClintock's results were considered to be wrong. It wasn't until years later that she was able to prove her experiments had worked. Today, McClintock's "negative results" are considered to be classic experiments in the history of biology.<br />
<br />
The All Results Journals is edited by David Alcantara, a Ph.D in Chemistry at Harvard. He came up with the idea for the journal while talking about experiments that failed to do what they were supposed to. Usually, when an experiment fails to produce the data a scientist wants, he or she will simply throw out the results and try again (or try something else). But Alcantara realized that sometimes the negative result is the right answer … and there should be a way for scientists to share these results. It's an online journal, and TOTAL Open Access which means it hasn't any publsihing fee to authors or readers, the articles are available to just about anyone who wants to read it.<br />
<br />
The All Results Journals are looking for negative results that challenge the prevailing beliefs and dogmas. There are 4 fields that focus on publishing:<br />
<br />
<ul><li><a href="http://www.arjournals.com/ojs/index.php?journal=Chem&page=index">Negative Results in Chemistry</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.arjournals.com/ojs/index.php?journal=Biol&page=index">Negative Results in Biology</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.arjournals.com/ojs/index.php?journal=Phys&page=index">Negative Results in Physics</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.arjournals.com/ojs/index.php?journal=Nano&page=index">Negative Results in Nanotechnology</a></li>
</ul><br />
They are interested in negative results that are actually "right," but which aren't being seen properly because they're unexpected. Often, scientific results are prejudiced by what the scientists expect to see. If the results don't fit their pre-conceived notions, then they're likely to reject the experiment as a failure or a negative result, and not bother trying to publish the results.<br />
<br />
It's such an unconventional, groundbreaking idea that some scientists thought the new journal was a joke, a place where they could run funny stories or bogus experiments. Others thought it was a dumping ground where they could publish their poorly-conducted experiments. But The All Results Journals team are keeping very high standards for the new journal. They insist that even though the experiments they publish didn't work in the way that was expected, they still have to be conducted rigorously, and be repeatable. To that end, each paper submitted to the journal is peer reviewed by other experts in the field, just as it would be for any other high-quality journal.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4390501983607152799.post-80680754981615169342010-02-06T09:45:00.000-08:002011-02-13T08:10:43.009-08:00Partituras de piano fáciles: Nivel 4<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhz-hQfEpnhgmF30DqyR5YjCMchrXC1Qf1QEykwSWkRLGn7eGa113dIQqK5F-AfTVBzUB8Frt8D89mTCz0ynp4On1ZOiCJV_O9CP9MtpnndlDqC3pSyO2ljMCEhcpCTRNcyyymT4wE13RjD/s1600/pubilicite+su+empresa_partiturafacil.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhz-hQfEpnhgmF30DqyR5YjCMchrXC1Qf1QEykwSWkRLGn7eGa113dIQqK5F-AfTVBzUB8Frt8D89mTCz0ynp4On1ZOiCJV_O9CP9MtpnndlDqC3pSyO2ljMCEhcpCTRNcyyymT4wE13RjD/s1600/pubilicite+su+empresa_partiturafacil.png" /></a></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0