Submissions

Author Guidelines

Nullius in Verba (NiV) — Journal of Negative, Null and Failed Results — welcomes original, rigorous, and scientifically significant contributions investigating negative, null, inconclusive, and failed results across all scientific disciplines.

The journal is inherently interdisciplinary and provides a scholarly forum for research connecting the natural sciences, life and medical sciences, social sciences, engineering, data science, artificial intelligence, and related fields.

NiV is particularly interested in research that would otherwise remain unpublished because it does not confirm a hypothesis, does not reach statistical significance, does not replicate a previous finding, or does not achieve its intended aim — yet is methodologically sound and scientifically informative.

The journal 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. A well-conducted negative or null result is a contribution to science, not a failure of it.

NiV welcomes submissions across the natural sciences, life and medical sciences, social sciences, engineering, data science, and artificial intelligence, including interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary work.

The journal publishes:

• Negative results — studies that do not find the hypothesized effect

• Null results — results that fail to reject the null hypothesis

• Failed replications — attempts to reproduce previous findings that did not succeed

• Abandoned hypotheses — analyses of why a hypothesis did not hold

• Failed or discontinued clinical trials — Phase I–III, including stopped and inconclusive trials

• Methodological failures — protocol, instrument, or software failures with instructive value

• Data notes — datasets of limited immediate use that may still benefit the community

• Publication-bias meta-research — studies quantifying the file drawer problem

• Inconclusive and exploratory findings — well-conducted studies whose results are inconclusive but informative

No article type exceeds 8,000 words (excluding references, tables, figures, and supplementary materials).

Article Processing Charges (APCs)

Nullius in Verba is a Diamond Open Access journal. No Article Processing Charges (APCs) and no submission fees are charged.

NiV is published by AnKa Publisher under a Diamond Open Access model: neither authors nor readers pay any fees. There are no submission fees, no article processing charges, no page charges, no colour charges, and no subscription fees of any kind.

The journal's primary support comes from its publisher, AnKa Publisher, which provides publishing infrastructure, DOI registration, ISSN maintenance, technical support, and editorial coordination. 

All articles are published under a CC BY 4.0 licence, and authors retain copyright.

1. Submission of Manuscripts — Preparation of Articles

Authors are strongly encouraged to carefully follow the guidelines outlined in this document when preparing their manuscripts.

A well-structured manuscript should clearly establish the research context, identify the specific gap or unresolved question, and explicitly state the contribution of the study. Adherence to these guidelines will enhance the clarity, coherence, and academic quality of submissions, and is essential for maintaining the standards of the journal.

Mandatory Article Template

All articles submitted to Nullius in Verba must be prepared using the official template provided below. Articles not using this template may not be accepted for the review stage. Please also use this template file when uploading your manuscript to the online submission system.

Important Notes

Mandatory Template NiV: All manuscripts must be prepared according to the official template provided.

All Sections: The title, author information, abstract, keywords, headings, text, references, and all other sections must strictly adhere to the rules and formatting (font, point size, style, alignment, etc.) specified in the template.

Submission Process: You must upload your manuscript to the online submission system formatted according to the required template.

DOWNLOAD NiV ARTICLE TEMPLATE

Articles should be comprehensive, fully documented reports of original research. They should be concise but with complete results and conclusions. Authors are encouraged to take advantage of the Web features available (including 3D animations, video and sound).

Manuscripts should be divided into the following sections: Title page, Abstract, Introduction, Materials and methods, Results and discussion, Conclusion and outlook, Acknowledgments, Abbreviations list, References.

2. Types of Articles

NiV accepts several types of scholarly contributions. The structure and length of a manuscript should be appropriate to its article type. No article type exceeds 8,000 words (excluding references, tables, figures, and supplementary materials).

Original Research Articles

Original Research Articles present methodologically sound empirical, experimental, computational, clinical, or interdisciplinary research whose results are negative, null, inconclusive, or otherwise "unsuccessful" in the conventional sense. They should contain a clearly defined research question or hypothesis, an appropriate methodology, results, and a scientifically supported interpretation of the findings.

Failed Replication Articles

Failed Replication Articles report direct or conceptual replication attempts that did not succeed. They should summarise the original study, detail the replication methods, and discuss possible reasons for the discrepancy. Failed replications are among the most valuable contributions to the scientific record.

Registered Reports

Registered Reports present pre-registered studies in which 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. Stage 2 reports the results and discussion.

Brief Reports

Brief Reports present concise but significant negative or null findings that warrant dissemination in a shorter format.

Data Notes

Data Notes describe datasets of limited immediate use that may nonetheless benefit the community, including "dark data" that would otherwise remain unpublished.

Methodology Failure Reports

Methodology Failure Reports analyse methodological, instrumental, or software failures with instructive value — what failed, why, and what can be learned.

Meta-Research Articles

Meta-Research Articles provide quantitative or qualitative analyses of publication bias, reproducibility, research waste, or the file drawer problem itself, including meta-analyses, funnel-plot analyses, and p-curve analyses.

Clinical Case Reports

Clinical Case Reports present negative, null, or failed clinical cases with instructive value, including unusual presentations, treatment failures, and diagnostic challenges.

Trial Reports

Trial Reports present failed, stopped, or inconclusive clinical trials, including Phase I–III trials stopped for futility or negative trials.

Commentaries

Commentaries provide focused scholarly discussion of important scientific, methodological, or conceptual issues, including discussion of articles previously published in the journal.

Perspectives

Perspective articles provide scientifically grounded and forward-looking discussions of important developments, unresolved questions, emerging concepts, or future directions in negative-result publishing and research culture.

Letters to the Editor

Letters may address scientific, methodological, theoretical, or editorial issues relevant to the journal and may comment constructively on previously published work.

Editorials

Editorials are invited commentaries by the Editor-in-Chief or guest editors, typically tied to a special issue or journal development.

Special Issue Articles

Special Issue Articles are submitted to a themed special issue and follow the same standards as regular submissions, with theme-specific framing.

3. Article Preparation and Writing Style

All manuscripts must be prepared using the official NiV Article Template.

Manuscripts should be written in clear, precise, concise, and professional academic English. Because NiV addresses an interdisciplinary scientific community, authors should write for readers who may not share the terminology or methodological conventions of their particular field.

Specialized terminology should be defined when necessary. Unnecessary jargon, excessive abbreviations, rhetorical language, and unnecessarily complex sentences should be avoided.

Authors should carefully distinguish between established evidence, empirical observation, interpretation, hypothesis, and speculation. This distinction is particularly important for manuscripts concerning negative or null findings, which may be misinterpreted as "failed" science.

Theoretical possibilities should not be presented as established facts. Claims concerning absence of effect, equivalence, non-inferiority, or methodological failure should be supported by appropriate evidence or clearly identified as theoretical propositions.

NiV encourages a writing style that is analytical rather than promotional, scientifically cautious rather than speculative, and conceptually ambitious without exceeding the available evidence.

4. General Structure of Articles

The structure of the manuscript should reflect its article type.

Original Research Articles will generally include:

Title → Author Information → Abstract → Keywords → Introduction → Background/Literature Review → Methods → Results → Discussion → Limitations → Conclusion → Acknowledgments → Funding → Conflict of Interest → Data Availability → References

The structure may be adapted when required by the nature of the research. Computational, theoretical, philosophical, clinical, or mixed-methods studies may require different section arrangements.

Theoretical, conceptual, review, perspective, and hypothesis articles may use a more flexible structure, provided that the argument develops logically and the major sections are clearly identified.

5. Title

The title should be concise, informative, and accurately represent the central subject and contribution of the manuscript.

Authors should avoid unnecessarily long titles, unexplained abbreviations, vague terminology, and claims that exceed the evidence presented.

Because titles are used for indexing and information retrieval, important scientific concepts should be included where appropriate.

For manuscripts addressing negative or null findings, the title should distinguish between demonstrated absence of effect and theoretical interpretation.

6. Authors and Affiliations

All authors should be listed in the order agreed upon by the authors.

Each author's institutional affiliation should include the relevant department or research unit, institution, city, and country.

The corresponding author should be clearly identified and should provide a valid professional email address.

Authors are strongly encouraged to provide an ORCID iD.

Only individuals who satisfy accepted authorship criteria should be listed as authors. Other contributors may be acknowledged separately.

7. Abstract

Every manuscript must include an abstract.

For Original Research Articles, the abstract should generally include: Background/Objective, Methods, Results, and Conclusion.

For theoretical, conceptual, review, hypothesis, perspective, and commentary articles, an unstructured abstract may be used.

The abstract should accurately represent the content and contribution of the manuscript and should be understandable independently of the main text.

References should generally not be included in the abstract. Unexplained abbreviations and unsupported claims should be avoided.

8. Keywords

Authors should provide 4–8 keywords following the abstract.

Keywords should represent the principal concepts, phenomena, systems, or methods discussed in the manuscript and should use established scientific terminology where possible.

Examples include:

negative results, null results, failed replication, publication bias, file drawer problem, reproducibility, research waste, open science, Registered Reports, meta-research, equivalence testing, non-inferiority, methodological failure, dark data.

9. Introduction

The Introduction should establish the scientific or conceptual context of the manuscript and explain why the research problem is important.

It should identify the relevant knowledge gap or unresolved problem and clearly state the research question, hypothesis, objective, or theoretical proposition.

The Introduction should explain how the manuscript contributes to the broader scientific discussion concerning negative, null, and failed results.

It should provide sufficient background to establish the rationale for the study without becoming an exhaustive review of the literature.

10. Literature Review and Background

The literature should be reviewed critically and in direct relation to the research question.

Authors should synthesise previous research rather than simply list publications. Important theoretical disagreements, methodological limitations, contradictory findings, and unresolved questions should be identified where relevant.

Because NiV is interdisciplinary, authors are encouraged to integrate relevant literature across disciplines rather than treating fields as isolated domains.

When introducing concepts such as publication bias, file drawer problem, research waste, reproducibility crisis, or methodological failure, authors should clearly distinguish established evidence from conceptual interpretation.

11. Methods

The Methods section should provide sufficient information for the research to be evaluated and, where feasible, reproduced.

Depending on the study, this may include research design, participants, datasets, materials, experimental procedures, computational models, algorithms, model architecture, training procedures, software, statistical analyses, and evaluation methods.

For studies involving human participants, clinical data, or other sensitive materials, appropriate information concerning ethical approval, informed consent, participant protection, and relevant institutional requirements must be provided.

12. Results

The Results section should present the findings clearly, objectively, and logically.

Tables and figures should be used when they improve clarity and should complement rather than unnecessarily repeat the main text.

Statistical analyses should be reported using appropriate methods and sufficient information should be provided to allow readers to evaluate the findings.

For negative and null results, appropriate reporting of effect sizes, confidence intervals, power analyses, and equivalence tests should be included where relevant.

Interpretation of the broader meaning of the findings should generally be reserved for the Discussion.

13. Discussion

The Discussion should interpret the findings in relation to the research question, theoretical framework, and existing literature.

Authors should explain how their findings support, modify, challenge, or contradict previous research.

The broader implications for the field, for meta-analyses, for research waste, and for the scientific record may be discussed where appropriate.

Authors should clearly distinguish conclusions directly supported by the findings from broader theoretical interpretations.

Where findings may have multiple explanations, alternative interpretations should be acknowledged.

14. Limitations

Authors should explicitly discuss the principal limitations of their research.

Limitations may involve study design, sample size, datasets, methodology, measurement, computational constraints, theoretical assumptions, generalizability, or other relevant factors.

Research concerning negative and null results may involve additional limitations because the absence of an effect may be due to insufficient power, measurement error, or other factors. Acknowledging such limitations is an important component of rigorous scientific reporting.

15. Conclusion

The Conclusion should summarize the principal contribution of the manuscript and explain its broader scientific significance.

It should not simply repeat the Results.

Authors may identify unresolved questions and future research directions, particularly where the findings open new questions concerning the phenomenon under study or the methods used.

NiV particularly encourages conclusions that recognise uncertainty rather than presenting premature certainty about the absence or presence of an effect.

16. Figures and Tables

Figures and tables should be numbered consecutively and cited in the manuscript.

Each figure should have an informative caption, and each table should have a concise and descriptive title.

Figures should be submitted in an appropriate high-resolution format. Tables should preferably remain editable and should not be submitted solely as images.

Authors are responsible for obtaining permission for copyrighted material reproduced from other sources.

17. Supplementary Materials

Supplementary materials may include datasets, source code, computational notebooks, extended analyses, additional figures, experimental materials, questionnaires, model specifications, or other resources supporting the manuscript.

Where appropriate, authors are strongly encouraged to make data and code available through recognized repositories.

If supporting materials cannot be shared because of privacy, ethical, legal, security, or proprietary restrictions, authors should clearly state the reason.

18. Research Transparency and Reproducibility

NiV encourages transparent and reproducible research.

Authors should provide sufficient methodological information to enable independent scientific evaluation.

For computational and AI studies, transparency regarding datasets, model versions, training procedures, evaluation protocols, computational environments, and relevant parameters is strongly encouraged.

Where complete reproducibility is not possible, authors should clearly identify the relevant limitations.

19. Ethical Considerations

Research involving human participants, clinical populations, personal information, biological materials, or other sensitive data must comply with applicable ethical standards and institutional requirements.

Where applicable, authors must report ethics committee or institutional review board approval and informed consent procedures.

20. Artificial Intelligence Used in Research

When AI systems are used as research instruments, authors should clearly describe their role in the study.

Where relevant, manuscripts should identify the AI system, model, version, architecture, computational environment, or platform and provide sufficient methodological information for readers to understand how it contributed to the research.

Where commercially provided AI systems cannot be fully described, authors should report the information available to them and acknowledge limitations affecting reproducibility.

21. Generative AI in Manuscript Preparation

Authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, integrity, and scholarly content of their manuscripts.

Generative AI tools may be used for limited purposes such as language assistance, translation, formatting, coding support, or other editorial tasks, provided that authors retain full responsibility for the final manuscript.

AI systems must not be listed as authors.

Where generative AI has been used substantially in the generation or modification of text, figures, code, analyses, or other scholarly content, its use should be disclosed according to the journal's applicable policy.

Authors must carefully verify AI-assisted material for factual errors, fabricated references, inappropriate citations, bias, and other inaccuracies.

22. References and Citation Style

NiV uses an author–date citation system.

In-text citations should generally follow the form:

(Smith, 2025)

For two authors:

(Smith & Jones, 2025)

For three or more authors:

(Smith et al., 2025)

Multiple references may be cited together:

(Brown, 2024; Smith et al., 2025; Williams & Lee, 2026)

Direct quotations should include page numbers where applicable.

The reference list should contain only works cited in the manuscript and should be arranged alphabetically according to the surname of the first author.

Authors should provide DOI information whenever available and should verify the accuracy and completeness of all references.

23. Authorship, Funding, and Conflict of Interest

All listed authors must have made a substantial contribution to the research and must approve the final manuscript.

Funding sources should be disclosed, including grant or award numbers where applicable.

Authors must disclose financial, institutional, professional, personal, or other relationships that could reasonably be perceived as influencing the research.

If no relevant conflicts exist, an explicit statement should be provided.

24. Data Availability Statement

Manuscripts reporting empirical or computational research should include a Data Availability Statement where applicable.

Authors should indicate whether the supporting data are publicly available, available upon reasonable request, subject to restrictions, or unavailable.

Where possible, datasets, source code, computational notebooks, and other reproducibility materials should be deposited in appropriate repositories.

---

25. Originality and Prior Publication

Submitted manuscripts must be original.

The manuscript must not normally have been published previously in substantially the same form and should not be under simultaneous consideration by another journal.

All sources must be appropriately cited, and authors are responsible for identifying substantial overlap with previous publications.

Preprints may be considered where consistent with journal policy, provided their existence is disclosed during submission.

26. Peer Review

NiV uses open peer review for manuscripts selected for external evaluation.

All submissions first undergo editorial assessment for scope, methodological soundness, and compliance with journal policies. Every submission also undergoes a 48-hour AI-assisted pre-check for plagiarism, statistical consistency, data integrity, ethical compliance, and reporting-standard compliance.

Manuscripts considered appropriate for external review are evaluated by independent experts with relevant expertise. Because of the interdisciplinary nature of NiV, manuscripts may be reviewed by experts from multiple disciplines when appropriate.

Reviewers are required to state explicitly why a negative or null result is scientifically meaningful. Rejection on the grounds of "lack of interest" alone is not permitted. Rejection must be justified on methodological or ethical grounds.

Following peer review, the editorial team may accept the manuscript, request revision, or reject it. A request for revision does not guarantee acceptance.

After publication, articles remain open for post-publication community review for 90 days. The most valuable contributions receive a DOI and a "Community Endorsement" label.

27. Revised Manuscripts

When a manuscript is returned for revision, authors should submit a revised version together with a point-by-point response to the reviewers' comments.

The response should explain clearly how each substantive comment has been addressed. Where the authors disagree with a reviewer recommendation, they should provide a reasoned scientific explanation.

Major revisions may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation.

28. Final Note to Authors

NiV welcomes research that does not necessarily fit within a single established disciplinary category.

The journal is particularly interested in work that identifies new questions, unexpected null findings, methodological boundaries, theoretical tensions, and previously unrecognised patterns across the scientific record.

Authors are encouraged to approach negative, null, and failed results without assuming that "no effect" means "no value."

A negative result may confirm the absence of an effect, constrain the boundary conditions of a theory, reveal a methodological flaw, prevent wasted effort, or redirect a field toward more productive questions. These outcomes may prove informative, corrective, clarifying, or otherwise consequential.

The journal therefore does not seek to determine in advance what a negative result will mean.

NiV seeks to provide a rigorous scientific forum for investigating how science learns from what did not work.

From Failure to Knowledge.

From Null to Informative.

From Absence to Evidence.

From the File Drawer to the Record.