Reporting negative results to stimulate experimental hydrology: discussion of “The role of experimental work in hydrological sciences – insights from a community survey”^*

References

• Andréassian, V., et al., 2010. The Court of Miracles of Hydrology: can failure stories contribute to hydrological science? Hydrological Sciences Journal, 55 (6), 849–856. doi:10.1080/02626667.2010.506050
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benedictus, R., Miedema, F., and Ferguson, M.W.J., 2016. Fewer numbers, better science. Nature, 538, 453–455. doi:10.1038/538453a
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blume, T., van Meerveld, I., and Weiler, M., 2017. The role of experimental work in hydrological sciences–insights from a community survey. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 62 (3), 334–337. doi:10.1080/02626667.2016.1230675
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boorman, G.A., et al., 2015. Regulatory Forum Opinion Piece: the value of publishing negative scientific study data. Toxicologic Pathology, 43 (7), 901–906. doi:10.1177/0192623315595884
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burt, T.P. and McDonnell, J.J., 2015. Whither field hydrology? The need for discovery science and outrageous hydrological hypotheses. Water Resources Research, 51 (8), 5919–5928. doi:10.1002/2014WR016839
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chalmers, A.F., 1973. On learning from our mistakes, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 24 (2), 164–173. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/bjps/24.2.164
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Curry, S., 2015. On the importance of being negative. The Guardian. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2015/mar/08/on-the-importance-of-being-negative [Accessed 21 Dec 2017].
   Google Scholar
• Experimental Hydrology Wiki, 2017. [Online]. Available from: http://www.experimental-hydrology.net/ [Accessed 19 Sep 2017].
   Google Scholar
• Granqvist, E., 2015. Why science needs to publish negative results. Elsevier Connect.
   Google Scholar
• Matosin, N., et al., 2014. Negativity towards negative results: a discussion of the disconnect between scientific worth and scientific culture. Disease Models and Mechanisms, 7 (2), 171–173. doi:10.1242/dmm.015123
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Montanari, A., et al., 2013. “Panta Rhei—everything flows”: change in hydrology and society—the IAHS scientific decade 2013–2022. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 58 (6), 1256–1275. doi:10.1080/02626667.2013.809088
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Müller, H., et al., 2017. Learning from hypotheses and failures in hydrology, EGU 2017 - Session HS 1.11. Available from: http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2017/session/23936 [Accessed 1 Sep 2017 ].
   Google Scholar
• Nature Editorial, 2016. Early-career researchers need fewer burdens and more support, Editorial. Nature, 538, 427. doi:10.1038/538427a
   Google Scholar
• Nosek, B. and Lakens, D., 2014. A method to increase the credibility of published results. Social Psychology, 45, 137–141. doi:10.1027/1864-9335/a000192
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peters-Lidard, C.D., et al., 2017. Scaling, similarity, and the fourth paradigm for hydrology. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 21, 3701–3713. doi:10.5194/hess-21-3701-2017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• PLOS collections, 2015. Positively negative: A new PLOS ONE collection focusing on negative, null and inconclusive results. PLoS One Community Blog. Available from: http://blogs.plos.org/everyone/2015/02/25/positively-negative-new-plos-one-collection-focusing-negative-null-inconclusive-results/ [Accessed 1 Sep 2017].
   Google Scholar
• PLOS collections, 2017. Negative results: A crucial piece of the scientific puzzle. PLoS One Community Blog. Available from: http://blogs.plos.org/everyone/2017/10/26/negative-results-a-crucial-piece-of-the-scientific-puzzle/ [Accessed 1 Sep 2017].
   Google Scholar
• Popper, K., 1963. Conjectures and refutations: the growth of scientific knowledge. London, UK: Routledge Classics.
   Google Scholar
• Powell, K., 2016. Young, talented and fed-up: scientists tell their stories. Nature, 538, 446–449. doi:10.1038/538446a
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schooler, J., 2011. Unpublished results hide the decline effect. Nature, 470, 437. doi:10.1038/470437a
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sidle, R.C., 2006. Field observations and process understanding in hydrology: essential components in scaling. Hydrological Processes, 20 (6), 1439–1445. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1085
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tauro, F., et al., 2018. Measurements and Observations in the XXI century (MOXXI): innovation and multidisciplinarity to sense the hydrological cycle. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 63 (2). doi:10.1080/02626667.2017.142019
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Emmerik, T., 2015. Four reasons why all geoscientists should do fieldwork, Streams of Thought (Young Hydrologic Society), Published July 2016. doi:10.5281/zenodo.58084
   Google Scholar
• van’t Veer, A.E. and Giner-Sorolla, R., 2016. Pre-registration in social psychology – A discussion and suggested template. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 67, 2–12. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2016.03.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vidon, P.G., 2015. Field hydrologists needed: a call for young hydrologists to (re)‐focus on field studies. Hydrological Processes, 29 (26), 5478–5480. doi:10.1002/hyp.10614
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar