Rethinking research assessment: Why null results matter

Author: Ritu Dhand

Chief Scientific Officer

Researchers tell us they want credit for more of the work they do. In 2025, we published the results from two large-scale surveys on research assessment and the sharing of null results (where research outcomes did not confirm the desired hypothesis). Both white papers signpost what is holding back – or might drive forward – open science. Here, we show why updating research assessment is essential if we want more researchers to share rigorously conducted null results.

Open science practices are on the rise

The research landscape looks markedly different to a decade ago: research output is on the rise leading to many more articles being published each year; our author base is more diverse; and open science is gaining momentum. In 2024, 50% of Springer Nature’s primary research was published open access, with signs that open sharing is nearing a global tipping point. 

So, what drives open sharing? Over several years, our State of Open Data survey, conducted in partnership with Figshare and Digital Science, has pointed to lack of credit as an ongoing blocker. As Figshare’s founder, Mark Hahnel, explained in his blog, we need to be able to measure the impact of open data sharing, and we need to reward researchers for doing so. The same applies beyond data to methods, code, protocols, and null results. If we want researchers to share more of their outputs, we need to make it fit naturally with their existing workflows, in ways that can be measured and credited.

Measuring and rewarding open science 

Research assessment is an important incentive for open practices. Our State of Research Assessment survey found that researchers worldwide want to be evaluated against a wider range of contributions that are more reflective of the work that they do. They also want research evaluation to consider the impact that they make beyond metrics, taking into account interdisciplinarity, impact on society, internationality, and openness, for example. Yet 55% of respondents stated that their work was evaluated entirely or mostly using metrics, of which publication metrics, such as citations or article-level metrics, were most common.

This focus on traditional metrics – based on the research article – makes it harder to credit the contributions that underpin rigorous, reproducible science. These reward systems are too narrow, and an emphasis on high impact research with high numbers of citations inevitably means that there is less incentive to share outputs that don’t align with this metric. This includes null results.

Why null results matter 

Sharing all outcomes of research, including null results, is a core tenet of open science. Sharing null results increases transparency, improve rigour, and reduces the significant wastage of research budgets. In our State of Null Results white paper, nearly all researchers recognised the benefits of sharing null results: 72% reported positive outcomes from publishing a null result, and 68% had used null results shared by others to refine their own work. They told us that sharing null results can help lead to better hypotheses, more rigorous methods, and new inspiration for their research. Sharing these results also helps to advance science, saving researchers from spending time or resources on paths that have already been explored.

Researchers who published null results in a journal shared examples of ways they had benefitted.

Challenging the status quo and opening new directions: 

• In medicine, one early career researcher commented how their publication “changed the false information held for many decades.”  
• A biologist in Canada found that sharing nulls led to collaborations and “three back-to-back papers… the publication transformed null results into positive results.” 

Supporting methodological rigour: 

• For another biologist, null results “helped other groups adjust their hypothesis and experimental approach,” and in another case, “opened a new research field.” 

Saved time and money: 

• A Swiss team’s paper was “widely cited,” saving others “from spending time on unproductive methodologies.”  
• An engineering researcher in Finland commented that a peer “cancelled a planned study” after reading their results.  

Benefits to research careers: 

• 20% reported a positive career impact and 20% a reputation boost. 
• 18% gained new collaborations with other research groups. 
• 17% saw others attempt replication. 

Despite these positive benefits, only 68% of those who have generated null results have shared them in some form. Only 30% submitted them to a journal, despite this being seen as the most useful way to share them.

The perception-reality gap 

For many, our survey showed that fear of rejection was a major factor holding researchers back from submitting to journals, along with low familiarity with journals that proactively accept this type of paper (like the Discover journals). Fear of negative consequences and low awareness of institutional or funder support are other factors.

There is a real gap here between perception and behaviour. Sharing null results is seen as highly beneficial, but researchers are not being incentivised to do so. Assessment reform can narrow these gaps.

Reforming research assessment is key to supporting null results 

The focus on traditional article or journal-level metrics is a key factor in the low sharing of null results in journals. When promotion, hiring and funding all reward high-impact positive advances, there is a lack of incentive to document or share foundational or incremental findings. Yet null results are essential in an inclusive and rigorous research culture. Broadening out evaluation criteria to consider null results is key to delivering open science, enabling all rigorous research, regardless of outcome, to be shared. 

A reform of research assessment could help to reward all rigorous work, including null results. Publishing these in peer-reviewed journals offers the most optimal way to globally share, evaluate, and reward these findings. 

What research assessments could recognise 

Open science practices advance rigorous, trustworthy science. If we continue to only recognise and reward novelty and citation, researchers will continue to deprioritise null results, even when they acknowledge the value in sharing them. A reform of research assessment could help to reward all rigorous work, including null results. Publishing these in peer-reviewed journals offers the most optimal way to globally share, evaluate, and reward these findings.  

For a deeper dive into the full analysis and recommendations, we invite you to read the white papers The State of Null Results and The State of Research Assessment. 

Related content:

• The state of null results: a new survey of researchers 
• The value of publishing null results 
• The role of metrics in research assessment

Don't miss the latest news and blogs, sign up to The Researcher's Source!