Publication Bias and the Institutional Response: The Case of Nullius in Verba — Journal of Negative, Null and Failed Results

Abstract

Scientific knowledge can advance soundly only when it records not merely confirmed hypotheses but also refuted assumptions and unsuccessful results. Yet for more than half a century, peer-reviewed publishing has systematically excluded negative, null, and failed results, causing the scientific literature to reflect not a faithful record of what science has learned but a biased subset of it. Named the "file drawer problem" by Rosenthal (1979), this phenomenon produces cascading consequences: inflated effect sizes, distorted meta-analyses, wasted research effort, and the erosion of scientific trust. This article examines the historical origins, statistical and epistemological foundations, and empirical evidence of this problem in the literature; presents historical and contemporary null result examples from various disciplines within a fluent narrative; and then evaluates, within an academic framework, the aims, scope, and editorial model of Nullius in Verba — Journal of Negative, Null and Failed Results, designed as an institutional response to this structural problem. The journal's Diamond Open Access model, open peer review process, Registered Reports format, and original metrics such as the "Negative Impact Factor" are analyzed as structural interventions aimed at reducing publication bias.