Should EarthArXiv do a "null results" contest?

I do not have the reference, but I have seen a study claim that (at least for climatology) there is no (big) problem. Null results are reported (which for me makes sense as knowing there is no relationship in a science where there are many potential ones is valuable information). The main caveat was that the null results tend to be reported in the paper, while the "positive" results were more prominent in abstracts. I guess it would make a difference whether a paper reports on many results (typical in climatology) or just on one (e.g., an expensive clinical trial).

I very much like the idea of that, @Bruce Caron, unless there’s a downside to doing it? I guess we’d also want to outline why we were doing it, e.g., to encourage and show the value of reporting such results. Also, we’d need to be clear on the judging criteria…which relates to my preceding point.

In any case we can let ASAPbio try it out first... learn from them.

Makes sense!

Here's some more on null results: https://junanaguy.medium.com/the-unreasonable-effectiveness-of-shared-null-results-c51d0b09bcf5?source=friends_link&sk=3aad3562bc511aadc4a72d6ee0b85334

Nice! Spot-on regarding the fact we should attach value to these outcomes. Shared via Twitter.