Fang Fang
-
The case for publishing well‑documented negative results in your field
Paper Discussion
Negative results are frequently unpublished, creating publication bias and wasted duplicate effort. Publishing well‑controlled negative findings can save others from repeating failed experiments. Should journals create stronger channels for negative‑result papers?
Fang Wang, Ethan Cook and 28 others3 CommentsView more comments-
Negative results need strong experimental design to be informative, not just absence of effect.
2 -
We should distinguish meaningful negative findings from poorly powered inconclusive results.
2 - View more comments
-
-
The value and limits of self‑citations in academic manuscripts
Paper Discussion
Self‑citations are necessary to connect your new work to your prior publications. But excessive self‑citation creates negative impressions for reviewers. Where do you draw your practical boundary for reasonable self‑citation usage?
View more comments-
Self‑cite only when your prior work is genuinely foundational for arguments in current manuscript.
2 -
Do not add self‑citations merely to inflate your own citation metrics.
2 - View more comments
-
