Publication

Editorial: Sweet nothings - the value of negative findings for scientific progress

Oldehinkel, A. J. T., Aug-2018, In : Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 59, 8, p. 829-830 2 p.

Research output: Contribution to journalEditorialAcademicpeer-review

APA

Oldehinkel, A. J. T. (2018). Editorial: Sweet nothings - the value of negative findings for scientific progress. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 59(8), 829-830. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12952

Author

Oldehinkel, A. J. (Tineke). / Editorial : Sweet nothings - the value of negative findings for scientific progress. In: Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 2018 ; Vol. 59, No. 8. pp. 829-830.

Harvard

Oldehinkel, AJT 2018, 'Editorial: Sweet nothings - the value of negative findings for scientific progress', Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, vol. 59, no. 8, pp. 829-830. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12952

Standard

Editorial : Sweet nothings - the value of negative findings for scientific progress. / Oldehinkel, A. J. (Tineke).

In: Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, Vol. 59, No. 8, 08.2018, p. 829-830.

Research output: Contribution to journalEditorialAcademicpeer-review

Vancouver

Oldehinkel AJT. Editorial: Sweet nothings - the value of negative findings for scientific progress. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 2018 Aug;59(8):829-830. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12952


BibTeX

@article{e86dffadbe954774ac15c3a7a346fd1b,
title = "Editorial: Sweet nothings - the value of negative findings for scientific progress",
abstract = "It is well-known that selective outcome reporting and publication distort the information that is made publicly available, and so undermine the reliability of what we consider evidence-based knowledge. Perhaps less known is that the risk of bias extends beyond the process of reporting and publishing results. Two further sources of bias are spin and selective citing. Spin relates to selective interpretation, meant to transform a basically negative conclusion into a more positively toned one; citation bias is the phenomenon that positive findings tend to be cited more than negative ones. The effects of these sources of imbalance accumulate, and the consequences can be huge. This issue of JCPP contains several articles with wholly or partly negative findings, which hopefully will be cited frequently. Publications regarding negative findings comprise an underrepresented and often undervalued minority, and therefore deserve all the support they can get.",
keywords = "Publication bias, Reporting bias, Citation bias, Spin, Negative findings",
author = "Oldehinkel, {A. J. (Tineke)}",
note = "{\circledC} 2018 Association for Child and Adolescent Mental Health.",
year = "2018",
month = "8",
doi = "10.1111/jcpp.12952",
language = "English",
volume = "59",
pages = "829--830",
journal = "Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry",
issn = "0021-9630",
publisher = "WILEY",
number = "8",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Editorial

T2 - Sweet nothings - the value of negative findings for scientific progress

AU - Oldehinkel, A. J. (Tineke)

N1 - © 2018 Association for Child and Adolescent Mental Health.

PY - 2018/8

Y1 - 2018/8

N2 - It is well-known that selective outcome reporting and publication distort the information that is made publicly available, and so undermine the reliability of what we consider evidence-based knowledge. Perhaps less known is that the risk of bias extends beyond the process of reporting and publishing results. Two further sources of bias are spin and selective citing. Spin relates to selective interpretation, meant to transform a basically negative conclusion into a more positively toned one; citation bias is the phenomenon that positive findings tend to be cited more than negative ones. The effects of these sources of imbalance accumulate, and the consequences can be huge. This issue of JCPP contains several articles with wholly or partly negative findings, which hopefully will be cited frequently. Publications regarding negative findings comprise an underrepresented and often undervalued minority, and therefore deserve all the support they can get.

AB - It is well-known that selective outcome reporting and publication distort the information that is made publicly available, and so undermine the reliability of what we consider evidence-based knowledge. Perhaps less known is that the risk of bias extends beyond the process of reporting and publishing results. Two further sources of bias are spin and selective citing. Spin relates to selective interpretation, meant to transform a basically negative conclusion into a more positively toned one; citation bias is the phenomenon that positive findings tend to be cited more than negative ones. The effects of these sources of imbalance accumulate, and the consequences can be huge. This issue of JCPP contains several articles with wholly or partly negative findings, which hopefully will be cited frequently. Publications regarding negative findings comprise an underrepresented and often undervalued minority, and therefore deserve all the support they can get.

KW - Publication bias

KW - Reporting bias

KW - Citation bias

KW - Spin

KW - Negative findings

U2 - 10.1111/jcpp.12952

DO - 10.1111/jcpp.12952

M3 - Editorial

VL - 59

SP - 829

EP - 830

JO - Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry

JF - Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry

SN - 0021-9630

IS - 8

ER -

ID: 62784377