Post

You may remember a few years back when CERN had to announce, "We're pretty sure neutrinos don't go faster than light, but we're getting this one funny result." There was some talk for a few weeks before they came out with the next report, "We found the messed-up wire. Physics is working right now."

I was thinking Felisa Wolfe-Simon, Jodi Switzer Blum, Thomas R. Kulp, Gwyneth W. Gordon, Shelley E. Hoeft, Jennifer Pett-Ridge, John F. Stolz, Samuel M. Webb, Peter K. Weber, Paul C.W. Davies, Ariel D. Anbar and Ronald S. Oremland. www.science.org/doi/10.1126/...

science.orgRetractionThe Research Article “A bacterium that can grow by using arsenic instead of phosphorus” by F. Wolfe-Simon et al. (1) has been the subject of discussion and critique since its online publication in 201...

Excellent. There should be awards for all the mundane results the confirm or deny previous work. I'm not bitter for having my only publishable results scooped by some journal in Siberia 50 years ago weeks after I verified them but hadn't submitted. Same environment & study subjects, same results. 😬😂

Semi-related, in archaeology we always report our negative results. Most archaeo (here in the US at least) is for preservation compliance, so it's important to report regardless of +/-. While technically "gray literature" (confidential reports) it's worth at least 1/2 credit, even if not peer-review

These reports are available to federal, state, local, and tribal government agencies, as well as other certified archaeologists in the region. Also always reviewed by regulators, and often cited by subsequent studies in the immediate area, as well as used for predictive modeling (geographically)