I'm sharing null results and non-significant findings. Guide me: 1) Submit to journals accepting null results (PLOS ONE

Prompt

ChatGPTOpenAI

I'm sharing null results and non-significant findings. Guide me: 1) Submit to journals accepting null results (PLOS ONE

Submitting null results and non-significant findings is an important part of scientific communication, and it can help promote transparency and reduce publication bias. Here’s a guide tailored to your request for submitting to journals that accept null results:

Choose the Right Journal:

PLOS ONE: This is an excellent choice, as it accepts research across a wide array of disciplines and is open to null results.

Other journals to consider:

Frontiers (various sections)

Journal of Null Results

BMC Research Notes

Scientific Reports

The Journal of Open Psychology Data (if your research pertains to psychology)

Prepare Your Manuscript:

Structure: Follow the standard structure of a research paper: Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusion.

Clear Presentation: Be clear and concise when stating your null results. Highlight the importance of these findings in the context of your research question.

Contextualization: Discuss the implications of your results. Even if they are null, they contribute valuable information to your field.

Include a Comprehensive Discussion:

Importance of Null Results: Emphasize why it's crucial to publish null results, such as addressing gaps in literature, informing future research, or correcting misconceptions.

Limitations and Future Directions: Discuss any limitations that might have influenced your results and suggest avenues for future research that could build upon your findings.

Comparison to Existing Literature: Relate your results to previous findings, explaining how your results fit within the broader context of the field.

Follow Journal Guidelines:

Each journal has specific submission guidelines. Make sure to format your manuscript according to their requirements which usually include aspects like font size, reference style, and figure/table formatting.

Submit and Promote:

After submission, consider sharing your research on platforms like ResearchGate, Twitter, or relevant academic communities to increase visibility and encourage dialogue about the importance of null findings in science.

Be Prepared for Feedback:

Reviewers may have questions or suggestions regarding your methodology or the interpretation of your findings. Be open to constructive criticism and willing to revise your manuscript based on their feedback.

Consider Preprints:

If applicable, you might also consider posting a preprint of your work before submitting to a journal. This can help to disseminate your findings early and establish your contribution to the field.

By following these steps, you can effectively communicate your null results and make a meaningful contribution to the scientific community. Good luck with your submission!

{DateTime.UtcNow:HH:mm}

GrokxAI

I'm sharing null results and non-significant findings. Guide me: 1) Submit to journals accepting null results (PLOS ONE

Acknowledging Null Results in Research

Publishing null or non-significant findings is crucial for scientific integrity, as it combats publication bias and helps build a complete picture of the evidence. Journals like PLOS ONE are indeed receptive to such results, provided the study is methodologically sound and contributes meaningfully (e.g., through rigorous design, replication attempts, or implications for future work). Below, I'll guide you on journal selection and submission strategy, starting with PLOS ONE.

1. Recommended Journals Accepting Null Results

Focus on open-access or generalist journals with policies explicitly supporting null/non-significant findings. Here's a curated list (beyond PLOS ONE), prioritized by reputation, impact factor (approximate as of 2023), and openness to null results:

PLOS ONE (Impact Factor: ~3.7)

Why it fits: PLOS ONE evaluates manuscripts solely on scientific validity, not novelty or significance. They explicitly welcome null results if the methods are robust and the study addresses a clear question. It's multidisciplinary, covering biology, medicine, social sciences, and more.

Submission tips:

Emphasize method quality in your abstract and discussion (e.g., power analysis to show the study was adequately powered yet still found no effect).

Their review process is efficient (median ~2-3 months); acceptance rate is ~50%.

APC (Article Processing Charge): ~$1,800 USD (waivers available for low-income researchers).

Submission portal: plosone.org/submission-guidelines.

Evidence of acceptance: PLOS ONE has published thousands of null-result papers, such as replication studies showing no effect (e.g., search their database for "null results" yields hits in psychology and neuroscience).

Journal of Articles in Support of the Null Hypothesis (JASNH) (No impact factor; niche)

Why it fits: Exclusively dedicated to null results across disciplines. It's a safe haven for non-significant findings, with a low barrier for methodological soundness.

Submission tips: Keep it straightforward—focus on the hypothesis, methods, and why the null matters. No APC; fully open access.

Drawback: Lower visibility due to niche focus. Submission via their website (kosovo.jasnh.com).

PeerJ (Impact Factor: ~2.4)

Why it fits: Like PLOS ONE, it prioritizes scientific rigor over impact. They've published null findings in ecology, biomedicine, and computer science.

Submission tips: Highlight transparency (e.g., preregistration if applicable). APC: ~$1,395 USD (lifetime membership option for $399 covers multiple papers).

Evidence: PeerJ's policy states they "do not reject papers on the basis of... perceived lack of interest."

Royal Society Open Science (Impact Factor: ~3.2)

Why it fits: Open to all sciences; encourages negative results to advance knowledge. Strong in physics, biology, and social sciences.

Submission tips: Frame your null findings in the broader context (e.g., contradicting prior positive results). APC: ~£1,350 GBP.

Evidence: They publish special collections on replication and null outcomes.

Other strong options:

Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology (Impact Factor: ~2.5): Psychology-focused, loves nulls for bias reduction.

eLife (Impact Factor: ~7.7): Shifting to a more inclusive model; accepts nulls if high-quality (though competitive).

F1000Research (No traditional IF): Post-publication peer review; ideal for rapid sharing of nulls with no APC for initial posting.

To find more, search databases like PubMed, Scopus, or DOAJ with keywords like "journals accepting negative results" or check the Registry of Open Access Repositories (ROARMAP) for policies.

2. Preparing Your Manuscript for Submission

Framing the Story: Don't bury the lede—state the null result upfront in the abstract. Discuss implications (e.g., "These findings suggest no causal link, informing resource allocation"). Include a power analysis to preempt critiques about underpowering.

Structure Adjustments:

Introduction: Clearly state the hypothesis and why testing it matters (cite publication bias literature, e.g., Fanelli 2010 in PLOS ONE).

Methods: Be exhaustive—share data/code via repositories like Zenodo or OSF for reproducibility.

Results/Discussion: Report effect sizes/confidence intervals, not just p-values. Explore reasons for null (e.g., sample size, confounders) without speculating wildly.

Common Pitfalls to Avoid:

Weak methods: Nulls get rejected if they seem underpowered or flawed—aim for at least 80% power.

Lack of novelty: Even nulls need context (e.g., "This replicates X study but in a new population").

Overhyping: Avoid phrases like "surprisingly no effect"—stick to facts.

Pre-Submission Checks: Use tools like StatCheck for stats errors. Get feedback from peers via platforms like Peerage of Science.

3. General Submission Strategy

Target Selection: Start with PLOS ONE if your field aligns (broad scope). If rejected, cascade to lower-tier options like JASNH. Check each journal's "Aims & Scope" for null-friendly language.

Timeline: Expect 1-6 months for review. Track with ORCID and Publons for credit.

Alternatives if Journal Rejection: Consider preprints (e.g., bioRxiv, PsyArXiv) to establish priority, then submit. Or registered reports (e.g., via Registered Reports Network) for planned null-friendly studies.

Resources:

Read "How to publish negative results" guides from PLOS (plos.org) or Nature (nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01386-0).

Join communities like Null Hypothesis Initiative (alltrials.net) for support.

This approach should boost your chances—many researchers succeed this way, contributing to more honest science. If you share your field or abstract, I can refine this further.

{DateTime.UtcNow:HH:mm}

MistralMistral AI

I'm sharing null results and non-significant findings. Guide me: 1) Submit to journals accepting null results (PLOS ONE

Sharing null results and non-significant findings is crucial for the scientific community as it helps to avoid publication bias and provides a more comprehensive understanding of research outcomes. Here’s a step-by-step guide to help you submit your findings to journals that accept null results, with a focus on PLOS ONE:

1. Prepare Your Manuscript

a. Title and Abstract:

Ensure your title and abstract clearly state that the study reports null results or non-significant findings.

Highlight the importance of these findings in the context of the broader research field.

b. Introduction:

Provide a thorough background and rationale for your study.

Explain why null results are important and how they contribute to the existing literature.

c. Methods:

Describe your methods in detail to ensure reproducibility.

Justify your sample size, statistical methods, and any other relevant methodological choices.

d. Results:

Present your null results clearly and transparently.

Include all relevant data and statistical analyses.

e. Discussion:

Interpret your null results in the context of previous research.

Discuss potential reasons for the null findings and their implications.

Highlight the importance of publishing null results to avoid publication bias.

f. Conclusion:

Summarize your findings and their significance.

Suggest directions for future research.

2. Choose the Right Journal

a. PLOS ONE:

PLOS ONE is known for accepting null results as long as the research is methodologically sound and ethically conducted.

Ensure your manuscript adheres to PLOS ONE’s submission guidelines, which can be found on their website.

b. Other Journals:

Consider other journals that explicitly state they accept null results, such as:

Journal of Negative Results in Biomedicine

Journal of Articles in Support of the Null Hypothesis

BMC Research Notes

PeerJ

3. Submission Process

a. PLOS ONE Submission:

Visit the PLOS ONE submission site: PLOS ONE Submission

Create an account if you don’t already have one.

Follow the step-by-step submission process, ensuring you upload all required documents (manuscript, cover letter, etc.).

Include a cover letter that emphasizes the importance of your null results and how they contribute to the field.

b. General Submission Tips:

Ensure your manuscript is formatted according to the journal’s guidelines.

Include a detailed cover letter explaining the significance of your null results.

Be prepared to address reviewer comments and make revisions as needed.

4. Addressing Reviewer Comments

a. Initial Review:

Carefully read and address all reviewer comments.

Provide detailed responses to each comment, explaining any changes made or justifying why changes were not made.

b. Revisions:

Make all necessary revisions to your manuscript based on reviewer feedback.

Ensure that your revisions are clearly highlighted in the revised manuscript.

5. Final Steps

a. Acceptance:

Once your manuscript is accepted, follow the journal’s instructions for final submission and publication.

b. Post-Publication:

Promote your published work through social media, academic networks, and other relevant platforms.

Engage with the scientific community to discuss the implications of your null results.

Additional Tips

Transparency: Be transparent about your methods and results. Include all relevant data and analyses.

Ethics: Ensure that your research adheres to ethical guidelines and standards.

Collaboration: Consider collaborating with other researchers who have similar findings to strengthen your argument.

By following these steps, you can effectively share your null results and non-significant findings with the scientific community, contributing to a more complete and unbiased body of knowledge.

{DateTime.UtcNow:HH:mm}

Analysis

This comparison demonstrates the different approaches each AI model takes when responding to the same prompt. Here are the key differences observed:

Response Characteristics

ChatGPT: Provides a detailed response with 26 sentences.

Grok: Provides a direct response with 94 sentences.

Mistral: Provides a direct response with 56 sentences.

Key Takeaways

Each model brings unique strengths to this type of query
Response styles vary significantly between models
Consider your specific use case when choosing between these models

Try This Comparison Yourself

Want to test these models with your own prompts? Visit SNEOS.com to compare AI responses side-by-side in real-time.

This comparison was generated using the SNEOS AI Comparison ToolPublished: October 15, 2025 | Models: ChatGPT, Grok, Mistral