Reporting negative results to stimulate experimental hydrology

This is a Preprint and has not been peer reviewed.

Downloads

Download Preprint

Supplementary Files
Authors

Tim van Emmerik , Andrea Popp , Anna Solcerova, Hannes Müller, Rolf Hut

Abstract

Experimental work in hydrology is in decline. Based on a community survey, Blume et al. showed that the hydrological community associates experimental work with greater risks. One of the main issues with experimental work is the higher chance on negative results (defined here as when the expected or wanted result was not observed despite careful experimental design, planning and execution), resulting in a longer and more difficult publishing process. Reporting on negative results would avoid putting time and resources in repeating experiments that lead to negative results, and give experimental hydrologists the scientific recognition they deserve. With this commentary, we propose four potential solutions to encourage reporting on negative results, which might contribute to a stimulation of experimental hydrology.

DOI

https://doi.org/10.31223/osf.io/jhrfb

Subjects

Earth Sciences, Hydrology, Life Sciences, Physical Sciences and Mathematics

Keywords

hydrology, experimental, fieldwork, negative results, publishing

Dates

Published: 2018-03-13 11:12

Older Versions
License

CC BY Attribution 4.0 International

Add a Comment

You must log in to post a comment.


Comments

There are no comments or no comments have been made public for this article.