Why librarians should champion null results in research publishing

Author: Jeffrey Robens

Librarians are well placed to lead the way in promoting transparency and advancing robust research practices. Findings that are null, inconclusive or unexpected can be an essential step on the path to knowledge. Researchers benefit from sharing these outcomes, and institutions gain from supporting open and responsible reporting. Springer Nature’s new white paper, The state of null results (2025), reveals what researchers think, what influences their publishing decisions, and where libraries can make the biggest difference. This post distils key insights and turns them into practical actions you can take on your campus.

The value of null results in advancing research

One thing I try to emphasise in our Nature Masterclasses workshops is that null results aren’t bad results; bad results come from poor design, inappropriate methods or uncalibrated equipment. In other words, they are not valid, trustworthy or reproducible. As long as trained researchers are using the right study design with the appropriate techniques being done under the right conditions on calibrated equipment, all the results are good. Some will be positive, and others will be null, but they are all valid, trustworthy and reproducible.

Furthermore, null results reduce research waste. If researchers know that a certain experiment will not work because it has been shared, then they will not waste their time, money and resources attempting to do it. And if researchers know what doesn’t work, it can inspire new innovative approaches to address that problem, null results can stimulate new ideas and hypotheses.

Another important role for null results not discussed in the white paper is their value in systematic reviews. Systematic reviews, which are common in medicine and some disciplines in social sciences, aim to synthesise all the results related to a specific research question, for example, the efficacy of a new treatment for a disease. But if those conducting systematic reviews can only find positive results, because the null results are not shared, that can significantly skew the conclusion of the article and possibly have a negative impact on public health.

Because these are all core values in responsible research communication, it is not surprising that in Springer Nature’s global survey (11,000+ researchers across 166 countries), 53% reported generating null results and 98% recognised their value. Among those who published null results, common benefits included inspiring new hypotheses or methods, identifying methodological issues and preventing duplication.

However, there’s a clear intent–action gap: 85% believe sharing null results is important, but only 68% of those who generated them shared them in any form, and just 30% submitted to a journal. Experiences were largely positive (reported by 72% of those who published), though a minority (20%) faced negative consequences. These realities underscore why proactive library support can change behaviours and outcomes.

How librarians help overcome researcher hesitation

The white paper identifies four consistent barriers that limit the sharing of null results. Understanding these challenges can help librarians tailor support and outreach more effectively:

• Concerns about bias and reputational impact
• Uncertainty around where and how to submit
• Doubts about journal acceptance
• A broader lack of institutional support and incentives

Awareness is particularly low: only 15% of respondents knew of journals that actively encourage null-result submissions. These concerns are echoed by participants in our Nature Masterclasses workshops as well. Notably, willingness to publish null results is similar across career stages and fields, though it can vary by region. For example, while 75% of researchers in the UK were likely to share null results, this drops to 35% amongst researchers in China. These differences can be useful information when tailoring outreach.

Another concern for many researchers are the metrics that institutions use to evaluate research performance (either for hiring or promotions). As these metrics are often influenced more by positive results rather than null results in publications (in terms of citations), again researchers feel pressured to prioritize their positive results. As mentioned in a post on metrics literacy, while metrics can provide a quantitative evaluation, they miss the broader contribution to the field or society. Therefore, institutions may also consider using a qualitative approach in research assessment to evaluate this broader contribution (“prevention of research waste”, for example).

How librarians support transparent publishing

The barriers to publishing null results are clear, but so are the opportunities for librarians to make a difference. From language choices to publishing guidance, here are four practical ways to support researchers and promote more transparent research practices:

• Use inclusive language: We recommend that librarians adopt terminology like “null, negative or inconclusive results” to help normalize these outcomes and reduce stigma. Avoid framing them as ‘bad results’, instead highlight their value in reducing research waste, generating new hypotheses and improving reproducibility. In workshops and guidance materials, mirror this language and lead with benefits. Openly sharing such findings also helps build trust in the research community, which can foster new collaborative opportunities.
• Clarify publishing pathways: Many researchers are unsure where to submit their null findings. Librarians can help by curating a concise “venues & formats” resource that lists article types, such as Registered Reports, Data Notes and Methods/Protocol papers and journals that explicitly welcome null results. Sharing methods and protocols separately from full articles can be especially impactful. As highlighted in an article on open method sharing, one researcher noted that while their protocol was cited 200 times in academic literature, the same protocol shared on protocols.io has been accessed over 30,000 times.
• Demystify journal options: Springer Nature publishes inclusive journals that welcome all in-scope, technically sound research following rigorous peer review. These are ideal venues for null results and descriptive or data-centric studies. Examples include Scientific Reports, BMC Research Notes, the Discover series, and Cureus. Including these in librarian guidance can help researchers feel more confident about where to publish.
• Connect to research assessment reform: Researchers often worry that publishing null results won’t be recognized or rewarded. Librarians can use their channels to amplify conversations around responsible metrics and open science and point to institutional policies that support transparency. Currently, only 38% of researchers are aware of such support, whether in the form of guidelines, policies, or access to repositories, so signposting these resources can make a real difference.

Five ways librarians promote null result sharing

Librarians can play a key role in shifting researcher culture around null results. Whether through training, guidance or recognition, these activities help normalize transparency and make it easier for researchers to share all outcomes:

1. Run a seminar on the importance of null results: These can be institution-wide or targeted to departments with low sharing rates and should address common concerns researchers have.
2. Publish a short campus guide: Show where and how to submit null results, including suitable article types and inclusive journal options with librarian contact for advice.
3. Create a recognition pathway: If appropriate, map how null-result outputs can ‘count’ in internal evaluations or open science recognition.
4. Offer rapid “submission triage” clinics: 15-minute librarian consults to check journal fit, article type, data citation, and transparency statements.
5. Track and showcase impact: Curate local case studies where sharing null results improved methods, prevented duplication or sparked collaborations.

Shifting the culture around null results doesn’t happen overnight, but it starts with clear and practical steps. When librarians create space for open conversations, offer targeted support and make publishing pathways visible, they help embed transparency into the everyday rhythm of research. The insights from The state of null results: Insights from 11,000 researchers on negative or inconclusive results offer a strong foundation for this work. We thank the authors and all the researchers who contributed their perspectives to this important conversation.

Related content

• How metrics literacy enhances researcher engagement and institutional value
• The state of research assessment: Insights from a survey of 6,600+ researchers
• The impact of good science communication, and how organisations can support
• Empowering researchers: The role of libraries in promoting published research
• How librarians help researchers maximise their reach
• Practical tips for librarians to support early career researchers’ success
• Impact through mentorship: The ECR Program expands
• Global research collaboration strategies that support researchers
• Getting an Academic Research Position: Challenges Faced by Researchers

Don't miss the latest news and blogs, subscribe to The Link Alerts!