Journals Should Publish All “Null” Results and Should Sparingly Publish “Positive” Results

To the Editor: The editorial by Rebbeck et al. ([1][1]) is timely and important. Here, I share some thoughts on this debate. The X team (real but anonymous here) meets successfully most proposed criteria. X has published nine articles on mostly brand new (but also some replicated) gene-disease

[1]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  Local Literature Bias in Genetic Epidemiology: An Empirical Evaluation of the Chinese Literature , 2005, PLoS medicine.

[2]  Timothy R. Rebbeck,et al.  Assessing the function of genetic variants in candidate gene association studies , 2004, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[3]  Paolo Vineis,et al.  A network of investigator networks in human genome epidemiology. , 2005, American journal of epidemiology.

[4]  B. Ponder,et al.  The Reliable Identification of Disease-Gene Associations , 2005, Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention.

[5]  Jonathan A C Sterne,et al.  Sifting the evidence—what's wrong with significance tests? , 2001, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[6]  Nathaniel Rothman,et al.  Assessing the probability that a positive report is false: an approach for molecular epidemiology studies. , 2004, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[7]  Christopher H Schmid,et al.  Summing up evidence: one answer is not always enough , 1998, The Lancet.

[8]  John D Potter,et al.  Genetic variation and cancer: improving the environment for publication of association studies. , 2004, Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology.

[9]  J. Ioannidis.  Why Most Published Research Findings Are False , 2005, PLoS medicine.

[10]  John P A Ioannidis,et al.  Translation of highly promising basic science research into clinical applications. , 2003, The American journal of medicine.