Reporting negative results to stimulate experimental hydrology
discussion of “The role of experimental work in hydrological sciences–insights from a community survey”*
Tim Van Emmerik (The Young Hydrologic Society, TU Delft - Water Resources)
Andrea Popp (Eawag - Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, ETH Zürich, The Young Hydrologic Society)
Anna Solcerova (TU Delft - Water Resources)
Hannes Müller Schmied (Leibniz Universität, The Young Hydrologic Society)
R.W. Hut (TU Delft - Water Resources)
More Info
expand_more
Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons.
Abstract
Experimental work in hydrology is in decline. Based on a community survey, Blume et al. showed that the hydrological community associates experimental work with greater risks. One of the main issues with experimental work is the higher chance of negative results (defined here as when the expected or wanted result was not observed despite careful experimental design, planning and execution), resulting in a longer and more difficult publishing process. Reporting on negative results would avoid putting time and resources into repeating experiments that lead to negative results, and give experimental hydrologists the scientific recognition they deserve. With this commentary, we propose four potential solutions to encourage reporting on negative results, which might contribute to a stimulation of experimental hydrology.
help_outline