A negative or null result — a well-designed study that fails to find the hypothesized effect, or that finds no statistically significant difference between conditions — is historically among the hardest kinds of finding to publish. That gap has a name (the “file drawer problem”) and real consequences for the literature: it inflates apparent effect sizes across a field, wastes resources when other researchers unknowingly repeat a failed approach, and skews the evidence base that systematic reviews and meta-analyses draw on. This guide lays out where negative and null results can actually be published today, based on each venue’s own stated editorial policy, plus the structural alternatives (Registered Reports, post-publication review, preprints) that sidestep the problem rather than working around it.
What Counts as a “Negative” or “Null” Result
The two terms are related but not identical:
- Negative result — a study that does not find the effect, relationship, or difference the researchers hypothesized, despite adequate power and sound methodology to have detected it if it were present.
- Null result — more specifically, a result that fails to reject the null hypothesis at the pre-specified significance threshold. Equivalence and non-inferiority trials are designed around demonstrating a null-type conclusion and are not “negative” in the publication-bias sense — a well-powered equivalence trial that confirms two treatments perform similarly is a positive finding for that trial’s actual research question.
See CASRAI’s dictionary entries on negative-result papers and null-result publication for the fuller operational definitions and worked examples. What both share, for publishing purposes, is that editors and reviewers have historically treated them as less “interesting” than a positive, significant finding — a bias in the review and submission process itself, not a reflection of the work’s methodological quality.
Why This Matters: Publication Bias and the File Drawer Problem
The tendency for statistically significant, novel-looking results to be written up, submitted, and accepted at higher rates than null or negative ones is documented in the literature as publication bias. Psychologist Robert Rosenthal named the mechanism the “file drawer problem” in a 1979 Psychological Bulletin paper: studies that don’t reach significance tend to get set aside, unsubmitted, rather than published — leaving the visible literature systematically skewed toward positive findings. The consequences compound at the level of a whole field:
- Inflated effect sizes. If only the strongest-looking results from a set of similar studies get published, the published literature overstates the true average effect.
- Distorted meta-analyses. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses that search only the published literature can be misled by exactly this pattern — it’s one of the five domains the GRADE framework asks reviewers to downgrade certainty for, and funnel-plot asymmetry (an imbalance in a scatter plot of effect size against precision) is one diagnostic signal reviewers check for it, though not on its own proof of bias.
- Wasted research effort. Without visibility into what didn’t work, other groups may unknowingly repeat the same unproductive approach.
This is also directly connected to the broader reproducibility crisis and its discussion in CASRAI’s guide to the replication crisis: a literature with a strong bias toward positive, novel results is also a literature where any given “positive” finding is more likely to be a false positive that later fails to replicate.
Journals Dedicated Specifically to Negative and Null Results
A small number of journals exist purely to publish negative, null, or otherwise “uninteresting” but methodologically sound findings. This niche has seen real turnover — several dedicated titles have closed since launch — so status matters as much as scope when deciding where to submit:
- Journal of Articles in Support of the Null Hypothesis (JASNH) — active as of this writing (jasnh.com). Published by the Reysen Group in association with the psychology department at Texas A&M University-Commerce, JASNH publishes original experimental studies across psychology where the data support the null hypothesis. It is a narrow, discipline-specific outlet (psychology only) rather than a general-science venue.
- Journal of Negative Results (Ecology and Evolutionary Biology) — operating on a live Open Journal Systems site at jnr-eeb.org as of this writing. Scope is explicitly ecology and evolutionary biology; it publishes rigorous work that does not depend on clearing an arbitrary statistical-significance bar to be judged interesting.
- New Negatives in Plant Science (Elsevier) — discontinued. This title launched specifically to cover negative/inconclusive results in plant science but is no longer publishing; do not submit here.
- Journal of Negative Results in BioMedicine (Springer/BioMed Central) — discontinued. Formerly a biomedicine-focused negative-results outlet; ceased publication.
- All Results Journals — appears discontinued; its domain no longer resolves. Treat this as inactive rather than a live submission option.
Practical implication: the dedicated-journal path has narrowed sharply. Outside of psychology (JASNH) and ecology/evolutionary biology (Journal of Negative Results), there is currently no actively publishing journal whose sole purpose is negative/null results — which is exactly why the soundness-based mega-journals and structural alternatives below are, for most researchers today, the more realistic route.
General and Multidisciplinary Journals That Review on Soundness, Not Novelty
A more durable path than a niche dedicated journal is a broad-scope venue whose stated peer-review criterion is technical and methodological soundness — not perceived novelty, significance, or expected impact. Because a negative or null result can be perfectly sound science, this editorial model accepts it on the same footing as a positive finding:
- PLOS ONE — PLOS ONE’s own submission and editorial criteria evaluate whether a manuscript is scientifically and technically sound, ethically conducted, and adequately reported — explicitly not whether the results are novel or “significant” in the impact sense. This is the founding editorial premise of the journal (est. 2006) and remains its stated policy. See CASRAI’s own PLOS ONE submission guide for formatting, fees, and process detail.
- Heliyon (Elsevier/Cell Press) — a broad-scope open-access journal, launched 2015, that likewise reviews for technical and ethical validity rather than novelty, and explicitly welcomes negative and null results, incremental advances, and replication studies.
- PeerJ — a broad-scope, soundness-based open-access journal in the life, environmental, and biomedical sciences, following the same “PLOS ONE model” of publishing based on rigor rather than perceived importance.
- Scientific Reports (Springer Nature) — the largest of Nature Portfolio’s journals, also soundness-based rather than novelty-based in its review criteria, and correspondingly open to well-conducted studies regardless of outcome.
- BMC Research Notes (part of the BMC series) — explicitly scoped to include negative and null results, and incremental or confirmatory findings, alongside standard research notes, provided the work meets BMC’s soundness criteria.
The tradeoff versus a dedicated negative-results journal: these mega-journals don’t specifically curate or highlight negative findings the way a dedicated title does, and a negative result still has to compete for editorial attention and reviewer time on the same terms as any other submission — but the venues themselves are active, indexed, and far more numerous than the dedicated-journal category above.
F1000Research and Post-Publication Open Peer Review
F1000Research uses a structurally different model: articles are published first, then undergo formal, named, invited peer review openly after publication, with reports posted alongside the article. F1000Research’s stated policy is that null and negative studies are welcome and are not reviewed any differently from any other submission — reviewers assess research quality and validity, not novelty or expected interest. Because publication doesn’t wait on a favorable “is this interesting enough” editorial judgment before reviewers ever see it, this model removes one of the specific points in the traditional pipeline where negative results tend to get filtered out. See CASRAI’s dedicated guide, F1000Research and Open Peer Review: How the Model Works, for the full mechanics, timelines, and indexing implications.
Registered Reports: A Structural Fix, Not Just Another Venue
The Registered Report format addresses publication bias at its source rather than working around it after the fact. In a Registered Report, the introduction, hypotheses, and methods (Stage 1) are peer reviewed and can receive in-principle acceptance before the results exist — meaning the outcome cannot influence the editorial decision, because there isn’t one yet. Over 300 journals now offer the Registered Reports format across disciplines (per the Center for Open Science), including general-science venues such as PLOS ONE and specialty venues such as Cortex, where the format originated in 2013. For a researcher deciding between “find a venue that will accept a negative result after the fact” and “structure the study so the outcome can’t be used against it,” Registered Reports are the more durable long-term answer, though they require committing to the format before data collection begins rather than after a negative result is already in hand. See CASRAI’s Registered Reports overview and step-by-step Stage 1 protocol guide for how to plan one.
Preprints and Repositories as a Fallback or Complement
Where no suitable peer-reviewed venue is available, or as a way to establish priority and get a negative finding into circulation quickly, a preprint server or institutional/disciplinary repository remains a legitimate option — with the caveat that most preprints are not peer reviewed, so this doesn’t substitute for a journal record when one is needed (for a grant report, tenure file, or clinical guideline citation, for instance). Discipline-appropriate preprint servers (arXiv, bioRxiv, medRxiv, and others) accept negative and null findings on the same terms as any other manuscript, since there is no editorial “interest” filter at the preprint stage. See CASRAI’s guide to choosing a preprint server for criteria, and the preprints vs. peer-reviewed articles comparison for what a preprint does and doesn’t establish.
Comparison: Venues for Negative and Null Results
| Venue | Model | Scope | Current status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Journal of Articles in Support of the Null Hypothesis (JASNH) | Dedicated null-result journal | Psychology only | Active |
| Journal of Negative Results (Ecology & Evolutionary Biology) | Dedicated negative-result journal | Ecology and evolutionary biology only | Active |
| New Negatives in Plant Science | Dedicated negative-result journal | Plant science | Discontinued |
| Journal of Negative Results in BioMedicine | Dedicated negative-result journal | Biomedicine | Discontinued |
| All Results Journals | Dedicated negative/null-result journal group | Multidisciplinary | Appears discontinued (domain no longer resolves) |
| PLOS ONE | Soundness-based peer review | All science and medicine | Active |
| Heliyon | Soundness-based peer review | All science, engineering, medicine | Active |
| PeerJ | Soundness-based peer review | Life, environmental, biomedical sciences | Active |
| Scientific Reports | Soundness-based peer review | All science and medicine | Active |
| BMC Research Notes | Soundness-based peer review, explicit null/negative-result scope | All science and medicine | Active |
| F1000Research | Post-publication open peer review | All science and medicine | Active |
| Registered Reports (multi-journal format) | Pre-registered, outcome-blind acceptance | 300+ participating journals, multidisciplinary | Active, growing |
How to Decide Where to Submit: A Practical Checklist
- Check whether your field has an active dedicated venue. Only psychology (JASNH) and ecology/evolutionary biology (Journal of Negative Results) currently have one — most fields do not, so don’t spend time searching for a defunct or nonexistent dedicated journal in your discipline.
- If not, default to a soundness-based mega-journal in your field (PLOS ONE, Heliyon, PeerJ, Scientific Reports, or a BMC-series title) — these are active, indexed, and reviewed on methodological rigor rather than the outcome.
- Consider F1000Research if speed and reviewer transparency matter — publication happens before formal review completes, and named, open reports accompany the article once review is done.
- For a study still in the planning stage, consider a Registered Report instead of writing the paper after the fact — it removes outcome-based bias from the editorial decision entirely, at the cost of committing to the format before data collection starts.
- Use a preprint server to establish priority or get results circulating quickly, understanding it is not a substitute for peer review where one is required by a funder, employer, or downstream use of the finding.
- Verify current journal status directly before submitting — the number of defunct dedicated journals in this specific niche (three of five checked for this guide) means a stale blog post or an old citation list is not a reliable submission target on its own.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is it worth publishing a negative result at all?
Yes, in most cases — a well-powered, methodologically sound negative or null result prevents other researchers from repeating the same unproductive approach and improves the accuracy of future meta-analyses in the field. The barrier has historically been finding a venue willing to publish it, not the scientific value of the finding itself.
Do soundness-based journals like PLOS ONE actually accept negative results in practice, not just in policy?
Their stated editorial criteria explicitly exclude perceived novelty or significance as review factors, which is what makes a negative result reviewable on the same basis as any other sound study — but individual reviewers still apply their own judgment during review, so manuscript quality and clear framing of what the null result demonstrates still matter.
What happened to the journals that used to specialize in negative results?
Several closed. New Negatives in Plant Science (Elsevier) and the Journal of Negative Results in BioMedicine (Springer) have both ceased publication, and All Results Journals’ website no longer resolves. JASNH (psychology) and the Journal of Negative Results (ecology and evolutionary biology) remain active but are narrow in scope.
Are Registered Reports the same thing as a negative-results journal?
No — a Registered Report is a publication format offered by many journals (300+, across disciplines), not a venue in itself. Its relevance here is structural: because peer review and in-principle acceptance happen before results exist, the outcome cannot bias the editorial decision, which sidesteps publication bias rather than accepting a negative result after the fact.
