About the Journal

Science advances through evidence. Yet for more than half a century, the published scientific record has systematically underrepresented one of the most informative categories of evidence: results that did not confirm what researchers expected. Studies that fail to find a hypothesized effect, that fail to reject the null hypothesis, that fail to replicate a previous finding, or that fail for methodological reasons are routinely left unpublished — not because they are wrong, but because they are perceived as uninteresting, unoriginal, or unpublishable. This phenomenon, named the "file drawer problem" by Rosenthal in 1979, has produced a body of literature that is not a faithful record of what science has learned, but a biased subset of it.

Nullius in Verba (NiV) — Journal of Negative, Null and Failed Results  exists to correct this imbalance. It is a dedicated, international, peer-reviewed, Diamond Open Access journal that publishes methodologically sound research whose results are negative, null, inconclusive, or otherwise "unsuccessful" in the conventional sense. NiV takes its name from the motto of the Royal Society — nullius in verba, "take nobody's word for it" — to affirm that scientific claims must rest on evidence rather than authority, and that the evidence necessarily includes what did not work.

1. Our Name

Nullius in Verba — "Take Nobody's Word for It"

The Motto of the Royal Society

The name of this journal comes from the motto of the Royal Society, adopted soon after the Society's founding in 1660 by John Evelyn and other Fellows. Nullius in verba is Latin for "take nobody's word for it" or, more literally, "no one's words."

The Royal Society explains the motto as "an expression of the determination of Fellows to withstand the domination of authority and to verify all statements by an appeal to facts determined by experiment." It is a declaration of intellectual independence: no claim is accepted merely because an authority asserts it, and every statement must be tested against evidence.

From Horace to the Royal Society

The phrase itself is older than the Royal Society. It comes from Horace's Epistles (Book I, Epistle I) to his patron Maecenas, where the poet declares that he is not bound to swear by the words of any master:

Nullius addictus iurare in verba magistri,
quo me cumque rapit tempestas, deferor hospes.

"Not bound to swear by the words of a master; where the storm drives me, I turn in for shelter."

The motto has since become one of the most widely cited expressions of the scientific ethos. It has been invoked in editorials, in debates about evidence and authority, and even in the naming of an asteroid — 11059 Nulliusinverba — in the main belt between Mars and Jupiter.

Null Results Are Not "Null"

In 2016, Nature Physics published an editorial titled simply "Nullius in verba," which addressed the recurring appearance of "null results" in physics. The editorial made a point that lies at the heart of this journal: a null result is only "null" if you place no value in the information it provides. A well-conducted experiment that finds no effect is not a failure of science; it is a contribution to it. The information it yields — that a hypothesized effect is absent, or smaller than expected, or indistinguishable from noise — is exactly the kind of evidence that nullius in verba demands we take seriously.

What the Motto Means for This Journal

For Nullius in Verba: Journal of Negative, Null and Failed Results, the motto carries a specific and urgent meaning. If no claim should be accepted merely because an authority asserts it, then equally, no finding should be discarded merely because it is inconvenient, unexpected, or unfashionable. Negative, null, and failed results are part of the evidence. They are facts determined by experiment. To ignore them is to violate the very principle the motto enshrines.

We take our name from this tradition because we believe that science is at its strongest when it is willing to learn from what did not work — and when it refuses to take anyone's word for it, including its own.

2. Aims and Scope

Why NiV Exists

Science advances through evidence. Yet for more than half a century, the published scientific record has systematically underrepresented one of the most informative categories of evidence: results that did not confirm what researchers expected. Studies that fail to find a hypothesized effect, that fail to reject the null hypothesis, that fail to replicate a previous finding, or that fail for methodological reasons are routinely left unpublished — not because they are wrong, but because they are perceived as uninteresting, unoriginal, or unpublishable.

This phenomenon, named the "file drawer problem" by Rosenthal in 1979, has produced a body of literature that is not a faithful record of what science has learned, but a biased subset of it. The consequences compound at the level of an entire field:

• Inflated effect sizes — the published literature overstates the true average effect.

• Distorted meta-analyses — systematic reviews that search only published literature are misled by exactly this pattern.

• Wasted research effort — without visibility into what did not work, other groups unknowingly repeat unproductive approaches.

• Erosion of trust — a literature biased toward positive results is one in which any given "positive" finding is more likely to be a false positive.

NiV exists to correct this imbalance. It is a dedicated, international, peer-reviewed, Diamond Open Access journal that publishes methodologically sound research whose results are negative, null, inconclusive, or otherwise "unsuccessful" in the conventional sense.

Aims

NiV pursues five interconnected aims:

1. Reduce publication bias by providing a dedicated, indexed, and permanently archived venue for methodologically sound negative, null, and failed results.

2. Prevent wasted research effort by making unsuccessful approaches, abandoned hypotheses, and failed replications visible, discoverable, and citable.

3. Improve the accuracy of meta-analyses and systematic reviews by ensuring that the full evidence base — not only the positive subset — is available to synthesists.

4. Promote transparency and reproducibility through open peer review, open data, open reporting standards, and pre-registration.

5. Recognize the scientific value of failure by establishing editorial practices and metrics that assess rigour, contribution, and resource-saving potential rather than novelty or statistical significance.

Scope

NiV publishes original research, replications, methods, data, and commentary that meet the journal's methodological and ethical standards. Submissions are welcomed across the natural sciences, life and medical sciences, social sciences, engineering, data science, and artificial intelligence, including interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary work.

The journal's scope includes:

NiV does not consider perceived novelty, "impact," or statistical significance as criteria for acceptance. Manuscripts are evaluated on methodological soundness, ethical conduct, clarity of reporting, and contribution to the scientific record.

3. Editorial and Peer Review Model

NiV operates a three-tier review process designed to be rigorous, transparent, and efficient.

Tier 1: AI-Assisted Pre-Check (48 hours)

Every submission undergoes an automated pre-check for plagiarism, statistical consistency, data integrity, ethical compliance, and reporting-standard compliance. The pre-check report is shared with authors before peer review begins. This tier is not a decision point but a quality-assurance step.

Tier 2: Open Peer Review

NiV practises open peer review: reviewer identities and full reports are published alongside the article, and author–reviewer dialogue is public. Reviewers assess:

• Methodological soundness (30%)

• Scientific significance of the negative/null result (25%)

• Transparency — data, code, protocol sharing (15%)

• Reproducibility (15%)

• Clarity and presentation (10%)

• Ethical compliance (5%)

Reviewers must answer the question: "Why is this negative or null result scientifically meaningful?" Rejection on the grounds of "lack of interest" alone is not permitted. Rejection must be justified on methodological or ethical grounds.

Tier 3: Post-Publication Community Review

After publication, articles remain open for community comment for 90 days. The most valuable contributions receive a DOI and a "Community Endorsement" label. This turns publication into the beginning, not the end, of the evaluation process.

Registered Reports

NiV offers the Registered Reports format. In a Registered Report, the introduction, hypotheses, and methods (Stage 1) are peer reviewed and can receive in-principle acceptance before the results exist. This removes outcome-based bias from the editorial decision entirely, because there is no outcome yet to bias it.

4. Diamond Open Access

NiV is published under a Diamond Open Access model. This means that neither authors nor readers pay any fees. There are no submission charges, no article processing charges, no page or colour charges, and no subscription or paywall fees of any kind. Scientific knowledge produced through NiV is free to publish, free to read, and free to reuse.

Diamond Open Access is distinct from other open access models:

The choice of Diamond Open Access is integral to NiV's mission. If NiV charged authors, it would recreate the same exclusionary dynamic it was founded to correct. Researchers without dedicated funding would be unable to publish their negative results, and the file drawer problem would persist. Diamond Open Access removes this barrier entirely: any researcher, anywhere, can submit a negative result to NiV without financial consideration.

Publication bias is not only a statistical phenomenon; it is also an equity phenomenon. Researchers in underfunded institutions, early-career researchers, and scholars in the Global South are disproportionately affected by fee-based models. Diamond Open Access ensures that the ability to publish negative results is not contingent on the ability to pay.

Diamond Open Access is not a marginal experiment. According to the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), Diamond OA journals constitute a majority of open access journals worldwide — approximately 65% of all OA journals listed. The model is particularly strong in South America (~95%), Europe (~63%), and North America (~65%), and is growing rapidly in Asia and Africa. Turkey, through platforms such as DergiPark, actively promotes Diamond-compliant models. NiV joins this global movement as part of a mainstream, sustainable, and equitable approach to scholarly publishing.

5. Funding and Support

How NiV Is Sustained

NiV's Diamond Open Access model is sustained by a primary institutional backbone provided by its publisher, with supplementary support accepted where it aligns with the journal's mission and independence.

5.1 Primary Support: AnKa Publisher

The primary and foundational support for NiV comes from AnKa Publisher, which provides:

• Publishing infrastructure — hosting, manuscript management system, and journal platform

• DOI registration and metadata management

• ISSN application and maintenance

• Technical support — website, archiving, and integration with repositories

• Editorial coordination — administrative support for the editorial office

• Visibility and indexing support — assistance with DOAJ, Scopus, and Web of Science applications

AnKa Publisher's role is not merely financial; it is structural. As the journal's publisher, AnKa provides the institutional home that makes NiV's Diamond Open Access model possible. Within AnKa's portfolio of interdisciplinary and emerging-field journals, NiV occupies a distinct position: it is the portfolio's dedicated venue for negative, null, and failed results.

5.2 Supplementary Support: Accepted, Not Required

While AnKa Publisher provides the core backbone, NiV welcomes supplementary support from institutions, consortia, funders, and donors. Such support is accepted only when it is consistent with the journal's mission, editorial independence, and Diamond Open Access principles.

Supplementary support may include:

Important safeguards:

• No supporter receives preferential treatment in editorial decisions.

• No supporter influences peer review outcomes.

• No supporter gains exclusive access to content, which remains freely available to all.

• All support is disclosed transparently in the journal's annual report.

5.3 What NiV Does Not Do

To preserve its Diamond Open Access model and editorial independence, NiV does not:

• Charge authors submission fees or article processing charges (APCs)

• Charge readers subscription or access fees

• Accept advertising that compromises editorial integrity

• Accept support conditioned on editorial influence

• Sell or license content in ways that restrict open access

5.4 Financial Transparency

NiV is committed to financial transparency. The journal publishes an annual report covering:

• Sources and amounts of support (aggregated and anonymised where appropriate)

• Expenditure categories

• Editorial and peer review statistics

• Progress toward indexing and sustainability goals

This report is freely available on the journal website.

5.5 Sustainability

The combination of primary publisher support and supplementary contributions gives NiV a resilient funding structure. Because the core backbone comes from AnKa Publisher, the journal is not dependent on any single external grant or donor. Supplementary support strengthens the journal's capacity — for example, by funding language editing, indexing fees, or community outreach — but is not essential to its survival.

This model reflects the broader Diamond Open Access landscape, in which journals are typically sustained by a mix of institutional publishing infrastructure, voluntary academic labour, and diverse, non-extractive contributions.

5.6 How to Support NiV

Institutions, consortia, funders, and individuals who wish to support NiV may contact the editorial office. Support can take the form of:

• Institutional membership — annual contribution in exchange for acknowledgement and community engagement

• Project grants — targeted support for indexing, language editing, or outreach

• In-kind contributions — editorial time, technical expertise, or infrastructure

• Donations — voluntary contributions from individuals or organisations

All support is acknowledged publicly (unless anonymity is requested) and is governed by the journal's transparency and independence policies.

6. Distinctive Features

NiV introduces several features that distinguish it from conventional journals:

• Negative Impact Factor (NIF) — a metric estimating the research resources saved by a published negative finding.

• "Wasted Effort Saved" label — an estimate of how many redundant experiments the publication may prevent.

• Failure Taxonomy — each article is tagged by failure type (methodological, statistical, conceptual, resource-related, ethical).

• Living Negative Reviews — continuously updated syntheses of negative evidence in a given area.

• Cross-disciplinary Failure Graph — a map linking failures in one field to advances in another.

• Preprint and Repository Integration — integration with arXiv, bioRxiv, medRxiv, SSRN, OSF Preprints, Zenodo, Figshare, and Dryad.

7. Ethical Standards

NiV adheres to the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines. Key policies include:

• Authorship — based on substantive contribution, as defined by ICMJE criteria

• Conflicts of interest — full disclosure required from all parties

• Data and code — sharing is expected; exceptions must be justified

• Consent — informed consent required for human participants; animal ethics approval required for animal research

• Misconduct — allegations investigated following COPE flowcharts

• Corrections and retractions — published promptly and transparently

8. Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Is it worth publishing a negative result at all?
A: 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.

Q: What happened to the journals that used to specialize in negative results?
A: Several closed. New Negatives in Plant Science and the Journal of Negative Results in BioMedicine have ceased publication, and All Results Journals no longer operates. A few dedicated venues remain active but are narrow in scope. NiV exists to provide a broad-scope, sustainable alternative.

Q: Are Registered Reports the same thing as a negative-results journal?
A: No — a Registered Report is a publication format offered by many journals, 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.

Q: Does NiV charge any fees?
A: No. NiV is Diamond Open Access — no submission fees, no article processing charges, no subscription fees.

Q: How is NiV funded if no one pays?
A: NiV's primary support comes from its publisher, AnKa Publisher, which provides infrastructure, DOI registration, ISSN maintenance, technical support, and editorial coordination. Supplementary support from institutions, libraries, funders, and donors is accepted where it aligns with the journal's mission and independence. All support is disclosed transparently.

Q: Is Diamond Open Access recognised by funders?
A: Yes. Plan S, UNESCO's Open Science Recommendation, and many national mandates explicitly recognise Diamond Open Access as a compliant and preferred model.

Q: Can my institution support NiV?
A: Yes. Institutions, libraries, and consortia can support NiV through direct contributions, in-kind support, or membership arrangements. Contact the editorial office for details.

Q: What other journals does AnKa Publisher publish?
A: AnKa Publisher's portfolio includes The Journal of NeuroPhilosophy (JNφphi), CognextAI, Mars Settlement, HPlus, Byzantina Nova, Syntheses, Neuropsychiatry Case Reports, and Feline Coronaviruses.

Q: How does NiV fit into AnKa Publisher's portfolio?
A: NiV fills a documented gap: it is the portfolio's dedicated venue for negative, null, and failed results. Its mission complements AnKa's other interdisciplinary and emerging-field journals.