Illuminating dark data: Advancing spinal cord medicine through reporting on “negative” data

In the world of biomedical research, the value of successful outcomes is undeniable, for authors, publishers, funders, and research institutions. The growth of open science (1) however, is focusing attention on the widespread influence of publication bias toward positive results across scientific disciplines and the detrimental effects of underreporting results that neither confirm nor support the hypothesis tested.

The inherent value of publishing studies that don’t prove their hypothesis is being increasingly recognized by scientists, research institutions, universities, funders, and policymakers (2–5). As stated in a PLOS blogpost: “Regardless of the outcomes, new research requires time and financial resources to complete. At the end of the process, something is learned – even if the answer is unexpected or less clear than you had hoped for. Nevertheless, these efforts can provide valuable insights to other research groups” (3).

Most negative data never see the light of day, abandoned in notebooks and files in laboratories around the globe. More than 50 percent of the research output in the biomedical sciences is estimated to be this so-called dark data (2), and there is evidence of an upward trend (6). Traditional bias favoring novel results also undermines the publication of replication studies, which are critical to confirming reliability of findings and establishing productive avenues of new research (5). In 2016, a Nature survey of 1576 scientists revealed disturbing patterns. More than half of respondents reported being unable to replicate their own findings and more than 70 percent failed in their attempts to replicate the findings of other scientists (7).

The result of this publication bias? A public record that is incomplete and undermines the progress of research. Lacking the full picture, the interpretation of available findings is skewed, distorting meta-analyses, wasting resources, misleading researchers, and jeopardizing the health and safety of populations in need. Publishing studies with negative results not only provides valuable information but helps to recoup spent resources and prevent future wasted efforts.

A movement to change the culture of traditional publishing is part of the drive promoting open research (1). This movement toward greater transparency comprises open access journals, open data initiatives, preprint servers and publishing platforms supportive of null hypotheses; requirements by funders, e.g., Plan S and the OSTP memo; new article formats, e.g., registered reports and data reports; guidelines such as the Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) and the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT), and organizations that prioritize countering publication bias and negative perceptions about the importance of making negative results part of the public record (1, 2, 5, 8–12).

Spearheading this movement is the independent nonprofit Center for Biomedical Research Transparency (CBMRT) founded in 2017. Through its Null Hypothesis Initiative, the CBMRT collaborates with authors, biomedical journals, research institutions, publishers, and funding agencies to encourage the publication of negative results (2, 8). The articles featured on CBMRT.org include a study co-authored by the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine (13). The article describing negative results from a trial of an experimental treatment for Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease, was published in Neurology, official journal of the American Academy of Neurology, one of the more than 200 influential organizations that formally support the Null Hypothesis Initiative.

To kindle interest in publishing negative results, in 2020 the government funded Berlin Institute of Health @ Charité founded The QUEST 1,000 € NULL Results Award, exhorting its scientists to, “Publish your NULL results – Fight the negative publication bias! Publish your replication study – Fight the replication crises!” (5, 7). The QUEST Award provides a monetary award for Institute-affiliated authors whose submissions meet these criteria.

By illuminating dark data and countering publication bias, such efforts are evidence of a shift to more comprehensive, transparent, and efficient biomedical research, including research in injuries and dysfunction of the spinal cord.

To help complete the picture of spinal cord injury research, JSCM strongly encourages researchers to plan to publish their negative results. Promoting transparency and openness in spinal cord injury research will ensure more efficient allocation of resources and enrich the evidence base, accelerating advances that improve the lives of individuals with spinal cord injury and their caregivers.