Mixing
Can I publish a paper which 1) proposes an idea and 2) proves that the idea doesn't work?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
I wonder if is it ok for a researcher to suggest a new technique in a field of research (I'm researching in computer science but my question is a general question about every other field) and prove that this new suggested technique is a bad suggestion and gives no or negative gain and publish his work as a research on bad idea?
Of course if there be some believe and doubt in the field on the idea the researcher can prove it is correct or not in a research and it must be totally a productive result but if the idea be totally new and he just want to prove incorrectness for future researchers is this type of research acceptable in academy?
If not, why?
What is wrong with proving some never existing idea is not a good idea?
P.S. I read this and I want to know what is the current academy approach about such a research result and the reasons for the approach
https://www.elsevier.com/authors-update/story/innovation-in-publishing/why-science-needs-to-publish-negative-results
research-process research-topic negative-results
edited 2 hours ago
Allure
17.1k1258102
asked 3 hours ago
RYN
1263
New contributor
RYN is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
I wonder if is it ok for a researcher to suggest a new technique in a field of research (I'm researching in computer science but my question is a general question about every other field) and prove that this new suggested technique is a bad suggestion and gives no or negative gain and publish his work as a research on bad idea?
Of course if there be some believe and doubt in the field on the idea the researcher can prove it is correct or not in a research and it must be totally a productive result but if the idea be totally new and he just want to prove incorrectness for future researchers is this type of research acceptable in academy?
If not, why?
What is wrong with proving some never existing idea is not a good idea?
P.S. I read this and I want to know what is the current academy approach about such a research result and the reasons for the approach
https://www.elsevier.com/authors-update/story/innovation-in-publishing/why-science-needs-to-publish-negative-results
research-process research-topic negative-results
edited 2 hours ago
Allure
17.1k1258102
asked 3 hours ago
RYN
1263
New contributor
RYN is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Possible duplicate of Is it acceptable to write a scientific paper on an algorithm if better algorithms already exist?
– Allure
3 hours ago
This seems to be very dependent on whether the idea seems like it might work to people who are experts in the subject already.
– Tobias Kildetoft
2 hours ago
1
@Allure: absolutely not!! I'm not talking about a new idea which has gain a while there exists another idea which has gain b where a<b ; I'm talking about a new algorithm with absolutely no gain or negative gain; i'm suggesting a new idea which is totally a bad idea not a less effective one!
– RYN
2 hours ago
Fair point, I will retract the close vote.
– Allure
2 hours ago
Perhaps not exactly equivalent, but there is a paper on why Bubble Sort is always the worst option among the common elementary sorts.
– Buffy
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
I wonder if is it ok for a researcher to suggest a new technique in a field of research (I'm researching in computer science but my question is a general question about every other field) and prove that this new suggested technique is a bad suggestion and gives no or negative gain and publish his work as a research on bad idea?
Of course if there be some believe and doubt in the field on the idea the researcher can prove it is correct or not in a research and it must be totally a productive result but if the idea be totally new and he just want to prove incorrectness for future researchers is this type of research acceptable in academy?
If not, why?
What is wrong with proving some never existing idea is not a good idea?
P.S. I read this and I want to know what is the current academy approach about such a research result and the reasons for the approach
https://www.elsevier.com/authors-update/story/innovation-in-publishing/why-science-needs-to-publish-negative-results
research-process research-topic negative-results
edited 2 hours ago
Allure
17.1k1258102
asked 3 hours ago
RYN
1263
New contributor
RYN is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
I wonder if is it ok for a researcher to suggest a new technique in a field of research (I'm researching in computer science but my question is a general question about every other field) and prove that this new suggested technique is a bad suggestion and gives no or negative gain and publish his work as a research on bad idea?
Of course if there be some believe and doubt in the field on the idea the researcher can prove it is correct or not in a research and it must be totally a productive result but if the idea be totally new and he just want to prove incorrectness for future researchers is this type of research acceptable in academy?
If not, why?
What is wrong with proving some never existing idea is not a good idea?
P.S. I read this and I want to know what is the current academy approach about such a research result and the reasons for the approach
https://www.elsevier.com/authors-update/story/innovation-in-publishing/why-science-needs-to-publish-negative-results
research-process research-topic negative-results
research-process research-topic negative-results
edited 2 hours ago
Allure
17.1k1258102
asked 3 hours ago
RYN
1263
New contributor
RYN is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 2 hours ago
Allure
17.1k1258102
asked 3 hours ago
RYN
1263
New contributor
RYN is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 2 hours ago
Allure
17.1k1258102
edited 2 hours ago
Allure
17.1k1258102
edited 2 hours ago
Allure
17.1k1258102
17.1k1258102
asked 3 hours ago
RYN
1263
New contributor
RYN is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 3 hours ago
RYN
1263
asked 3 hours ago
RYN
1263
1263
New contributor
RYN is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
RYN is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
RYN is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Possible duplicate of Is it acceptable to write a scientific paper on an algorithm if better algorithms already exist?
– Allure
3 hours ago
This seems to be very dependent on whether the idea seems like it might work to people who are experts in the subject already.
– Tobias Kildetoft
2 hours ago
1
@Allure: absolutely not!! I'm not talking about a new idea which has gain a while there exists another idea which has gain b where a<b ; I'm talking about a new algorithm with absolutely no gain or negative gain; i'm suggesting a new idea which is totally a bad idea not a less effective one!
– RYN
2 hours ago
Fair point, I will retract the close vote.
– Allure
2 hours ago
Perhaps not exactly equivalent, but there is a paper on why Bubble Sort is always the worst option among the common elementary sorts.
– Buffy
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
Possible duplicate of Is it acceptable to write a scientific paper on an algorithm if better algorithms already exist?
– Allure
3 hours ago
This seems to be very dependent on whether the idea seems like it might work to people who are experts in the subject already.
– Tobias Kildetoft
2 hours ago
1
@Allure: absolutely not!! I'm not talking about a new idea which has gain a while there exists another idea which has gain b where a<b ; I'm talking about a new algorithm with absolutely no gain or negative gain; i'm suggesting a new idea which is totally a bad idea not a less effective one!
– RYN
2 hours ago
Fair point, I will retract the close vote.
– Allure
2 hours ago
Perhaps not exactly equivalent, but there is a paper on why Bubble Sort is always the worst option among the common elementary sorts.
– Buffy
2 hours ago
Possible duplicate of Is it acceptable to write a scientific paper on an algorithm if better algorithms already exist?
– Allure
3 hours ago
Possible duplicate of Is it acceptable to write a scientific paper on an algorithm if better algorithms already exist?
– Allure
3 hours ago
This seems to be very dependent on whether the idea seems like it might work to people who are experts in the subject already.
– Tobias Kildetoft
2 hours ago
This seems to be very dependent on whether the idea seems like it might work to people who are experts in the subject already.
– Tobias Kildetoft
2 hours ago
1
1
@Allure: absolutely not!! I'm not talking about a new idea which has gain a while there exists another idea which has gain b where a<b ; I'm talking about a new algorithm with absolutely no gain or negative gain; i'm suggesting a new idea which is totally a bad idea not a less effective one!
– RYN
2 hours ago
@Allure: absolutely not!! I'm not talking about a new idea which has gain a while there exists another idea which has gain b where a<b ; I'm talking about a new algorithm with absolutely no gain or negative gain; i'm suggesting a new idea which is totally a bad idea not a less effective one!
– RYN
2 hours ago
Fair point, I will retract the close vote.
– Allure
2 hours ago
Fair point, I will retract the close vote.
– Allure
2 hours ago
Perhaps not exactly equivalent, but there is a paper on why Bubble Sort is always the worst option among the common elementary sorts.
– Buffy
2 hours ago
Perhaps not exactly equivalent, but there is a paper on why Bubble Sort is always the worst option among the common elementary sorts.
– Buffy
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
6
down vote
What is wrong with proving some never existing idea is not a good idea?
Ideas are easy to produce, but unfortunately only a tiny fraction of them are really useful. If you pick an idea at random, it's likely to be not a good idea, and in most cases it would be relatively easy to check it and see it. So, your referees and your editor may wonder why is it so important to publish this random negative result, particularly in competition with other ideas, which actually lead to improvements and positive results.
why-science-needs-to-publish-negative-results
Some negative results are indeed worth publishing. For example, when you consider not a random idea, but a mainstream direction, which is believed to be superior all the time, and demonstrate that for a particular class of problems, or in particular setting, it does not work. So, your negative result essentially is an important warning that some popular and blindly trusted method is not yet well understood and should not be used as a silver bullet. Publishing such result can help preventing serious mistakes and hopefully start important discussion, eventually leading to improvement (or ban) of existing methodology.
Even in this case, you will need to do a good job convincing your referees and editor that this negative result is worth publishing, particularly if they are stand behind the idea you prove to be not good. Academia is very much influenced by the modern culture of success. It's much easier to become successful in academia when you talk about your success (however marginal and simple), rather when you produce negative results (however important and difficult).
answered 2 hours ago
Dmitry Savostyanov
19.5k64595
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
6
down vote
What is wrong with proving some never existing idea is not a good idea?
Ideas are easy to produce, but unfortunately only a tiny fraction of them are really useful. If you pick an idea at random, it's likely to be not a good idea, and in most cases it would be relatively easy to check it and see it. So, your referees and your editor may wonder why is it so important to publish this random negative result, particularly in competition with other ideas, which actually lead to improvements and positive results.
why-science-needs-to-publish-negative-results
Some negative results are indeed worth publishing. For example, when you consider not a random idea, but a mainstream direction, which is believed to be superior all the time, and demonstrate that for a particular class of problems, or in particular setting, it does not work. So, your negative result essentially is an important warning that some popular and blindly trusted method is not yet well understood and should not be used as a silver bullet. Publishing such result can help preventing serious mistakes and hopefully start important discussion, eventually leading to improvement (or ban) of existing methodology.
Even in this case, you will need to do a good job convincing your referees and editor that this negative result is worth publishing, particularly if they are stand behind the idea you prove to be not good. Academia is very much influenced by the modern culture of success. It's much easier to become successful in academia when you talk about your success (however marginal and simple), rather when you produce negative results (however important and difficult).
answered 2 hours ago
Dmitry Savostyanov
19.5k64595
add a comment |Â
up vote
6
down vote
What is wrong with proving some never existing idea is not a good idea?
Ideas are easy to produce, but unfortunately only a tiny fraction of them are really useful. If you pick an idea at random, it's likely to be not a good idea, and in most cases it would be relatively easy to check it and see it. So, your referees and your editor may wonder why is it so important to publish this random negative result, particularly in competition with other ideas, which actually lead to improvements and positive results.
why-science-needs-to-publish-negative-results
Some negative results are indeed worth publishing. For example, when you consider not a random idea, but a mainstream direction, which is believed to be superior all the time, and demonstrate that for a particular class of problems, or in particular setting, it does not work. So, your negative result essentially is an important warning that some popular and blindly trusted method is not yet well understood and should not be used as a silver bullet. Publishing such result can help preventing serious mistakes and hopefully start important discussion, eventually leading to improvement (or ban) of existing methodology.
Even in this case, you will need to do a good job convincing your referees and editor that this negative result is worth publishing, particularly if they are stand behind the idea you prove to be not good. Academia is very much influenced by the modern culture of success. It's much easier to become successful in academia when you talk about your success (however marginal and simple), rather when you produce negative results (however important and difficult).
answered 2 hours ago
Dmitry Savostyanov
19.5k64595
add a comment |Â
up vote
6
down vote
up vote
6
down vote
What is wrong with proving some never existing idea is not a good idea?
Ideas are easy to produce, but unfortunately only a tiny fraction of them are really useful. If you pick an idea at random, it's likely to be not a good idea, and in most cases it would be relatively easy to check it and see it. So, your referees and your editor may wonder why is it so important to publish this random negative result, particularly in competition with other ideas, which actually lead to improvements and positive results.
why-science-needs-to-publish-negative-results
Some negative results are indeed worth publishing. For example, when you consider not a random idea, but a mainstream direction, which is believed to be superior all the time, and demonstrate that for a particular class of problems, or in particular setting, it does not work. So, your negative result essentially is an important warning that some popular and blindly trusted method is not yet well understood and should not be used as a silver bullet. Publishing such result can help preventing serious mistakes and hopefully start important discussion, eventually leading to improvement (or ban) of existing methodology.
Even in this case, you will need to do a good job convincing your referees and editor that this negative result is worth publishing, particularly if they are stand behind the idea you prove to be not good. Academia is very much influenced by the modern culture of success. It's much easier to become successful in academia when you talk about your success (however marginal and simple), rather when you produce negative results (however important and difficult).
answered 2 hours ago
Dmitry Savostyanov
19.5k64595
What is wrong with proving some never existing idea is not a good idea?
Ideas are easy to produce, but unfortunately only a tiny fraction of them are really useful. If you pick an idea at random, it's likely to be not a good idea, and in most cases it would be relatively easy to check it and see it. So, your referees and your editor may wonder why is it so important to publish this random negative result, particularly in competition with other ideas, which actually lead to improvements and positive results.
why-science-needs-to-publish-negative-results
Some negative results are indeed worth publishing. For example, when you consider not a random idea, but a mainstream direction, which is believed to be superior all the time, and demonstrate that for a particular class of problems, or in particular setting, it does not work. So, your negative result essentially is an important warning that some popular and blindly trusted method is not yet well understood and should not be used as a silver bullet. Publishing such result can help preventing serious mistakes and hopefully start important discussion, eventually leading to improvement (or ban) of existing methodology.
Even in this case, you will need to do a good job convincing your referees and editor that this negative result is worth publishing, particularly if they are stand behind the idea you prove to be not good. Academia is very much influenced by the modern culture of success. It's much easier to become successful in academia when you talk about your success (however marginal and simple), rather when you produce negative results (however important and difficult).
answered 2 hours ago
Dmitry Savostyanov
19.5k64595
edited 2 hours ago
answered 2 hours ago
Dmitry Savostyanov
19.5k64595
answered 2 hours ago
Dmitry Savostyanov
19.5k64595
answered 2 hours ago
Dmitry Savostyanov
19.5k64595
19.5k64595
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
RYN is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
RYN is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
RYN is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
RYN is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f117206%2fcan-i-publish-a-paper-which-1-proposes-an-idea-and-2-proves-that-the-idea-does%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Possible duplicate of Is it acceptable to write a scientific paper on an algorithm if better algorithms already exist?
– Allure
3 hours ago
This seems to be very dependent on whether the idea seems like it might work to people who are experts in the subject already.
– Tobias Kildetoft
2 hours ago
1
@Allure: absolutely not!! I'm not talking about a new idea which has gain a while there exists another idea which has gain b where a<b ; I'm talking about a new algorithm with absolutely no gain or negative gain; i'm suggesting a new idea which is totally a bad idea not a less effective one!
– RYN
2 hours ago
Fair point, I will retract the close vote.
– Allure
2 hours ago
Perhaps not exactly equivalent, but there is a paper on why Bubble Sort is always the worst option among the common elementary sorts.
– Buffy
2 hours ago