| 000 | 03386nas a22002775i 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | 1477-5751 | ||
| 003 | DE-He213 | ||
| 005 | 20200124155123.0 | ||
| 007 | cr nn 008mamaa | ||
| 008 | 150723s||||||||xxkuu poo|||||| b|EN |d | ||
| 022 | _a1477-5751 | ||
| 024 | 7 |
_a12952 _2local |
|
| 210 | 1 | 0 | _aJ Negat Results BioMed |
| 245 | 1 | 0 |
_aJournal of Negative Results in BioMedicine _h[electronic resource] / _cedited by Bjorn Olsen, Dirk Mielenz. |
| 264 | 1 |
_aLondon : _bBioMed Central : _bImprint: BioMed Central. |
|
| 300 | _bonline resource. | ||
| 520 | _aJournal of Negative Results in BioMedicine is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that provides a platform for the publication and discussion of non-confirmatory and "negative" data, as well as unexpected, controversial and provocative results in the context of current tenets. Journal of Negative Results in BioMedicine aims to encourage scientists and physicians of all fields to publish results that challenge current models, tenets or dogmas. The journal invites scientists and physicians to submit work that illustrates how commonly used methods and techniques are unsuitable for studying a particular phenomenon. Journal of Negative Results in BioMedicine strongly promotes and invites the publication of clinical trials that fall short of demonstrating an improvement over current treatments. The aim of the journal is to provide scientists and physicians with responsible and balanced information in order to improve experimental designs and clinical decisions. Articles published in traditional journals frequently provide insufficient evidence regarding negative data. They hardly allow a rigorous evaluation of the quality of these results. In addition, controversial results that refute a current model or simply negative results within a current dogma, frequently meet considerable resistance before they are acknowledged. This is particularly the case if current techniques and technologies are too crude to shed further light on the findings. As more sophisticated techniques become available such findings may turn out to have been groundbreaking only decades later. Not every unexpected observation, controversial conclusion or proposed model will turn out to be of such groundbreaking significance. Nor will they even be confirmed by subsequent scientific progress. However, we strongly believe that such "negative" observations and conclusions, based on rigorous experimentation and thorough documentation, ought to be published in order to be discussed, confirmed or refuted by others. In addition, publishing well documented failures may reveal fundamental flaws and obstacles in commonly used methods, drugs or reagents such as antibodies or cell lines, ultimately leading to improvements in experimental designs and clinical decisions. | ||
| 650 | 0 | _aMedicine. | |
| 650 | 1 | 4 |
_aBiomedicine, general. _0http://scigraph.springernature.com/things/product-market-codes/B0000X |
| 650 | 2 | 4 |
_aMedicine/Public Health, general. _0http://scigraph.springernature.com/things/product-market-codes/H00007 |
| 700 | 1 |
_aOlsen, Bjorn. _eeditor. _4edt _4http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/relators/edt |
|
| 700 | 1 |
_aMielenz, Dirk. _eeditor. _4edt _4http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/relators/edt |
|
| 710 | 2 | _aSpringerLink (Online service) | |
| 856 | 4 | 0 |
_uhttp://jnrbm.biomedcentral.com/ _zOpen Access |
| 999 |
_c513759 _d513757 |
||