Scope and remit
Aims and Scope
IJNR publishes rigorously conducted research reporting negative, null, non-confirmatory or inconclusive findings across scientific disciplines, including unsuccessful replications, evidence-supported methodological limitations, and systematic reviews or meta-analyses of such findings. Eligible manuscripts are assessed on methodological quality, ethical standards and transparent reporting. Positive confirmatory findings fall outside the journal's remit.
Within that remit, a manuscript is judged on the soundness of its design and reporting. A clinical trial that found no difference between arms, a synthetic route that did not yield its target, a model that did not outperform its baseline and a field study that did not detect a predicted effect all belong in the same journal when each is designed and reported well.
The sections below set out example research domains, the further areas the journal considers, the work that falls outside its remit, the accepted article types, and the evidence a manuscript is expected to provide.
The journal
- Published by
- Open Access Pub
- ISSN
- 2641-9181
- Short code
- IJNR
- Access
- Open access, CC BY 4.0
Research domains
Where the journal publishes
The four domains below are examples, not an exhaustive list, and submissions from other scientific disciplines are equally welcome. A manuscript is in scope when it reports a negative, null, non-confirmatory or inconclusive finding, an unsuccessful replication, an evidence-supported methodological limitation, or a systematic review or meta-analysis of such findings, with conclusions proportionate to the evidence.
01
Biomedical and life sciences
Clinical trials and therapeutic interventions without a significant effect; non-significant drug-efficacy studies; molecular-biology, cellular and animal-model experiments that did not succeed; negative genetic-association studies; biomarker validation studies that failed.
02
Physical and chemical sciences
Chemical synthesis attempts that did not yield the target compound; non-reactive compound studies; unsuccessful materials development and catalysis experiments; negative results in analytical-method development; unsuccessful physics experiments testing established theories.
03
Computational and data sciences
Algorithm implementations that did not perform as intended; computational models that could not be reproduced; negative machine-learning and deep-learning results; data-mining and pattern-recognition approaches that failed; methods showing poor performance.
04
Environmental and earth sciences
Field studies that could not be reproduced; environmental interventions without the intended effect; negative ecological-correlation studies; climate-model predictions not borne out; failed geological exploration; non-significant environmental-impact assessments.
Also within the remit
Further areas
These areas cut across disciplines.
Replication studies
Direct and conceptual replications that do not reproduce previously published positive findings, including multi-laboratory and systematic replication projects.
Methodological limitations
Evidence-supported studies documenting limitations, biases or failures in established methods, analytical techniques, measurement instruments or experimental protocols.
Publication bias and null-result patterns
Patterns in null results and the extent of publication bias in a research area, including the pooled evidence once negative findings are taken into account.
Hypothesis-challenging research
Well-designed studies that test and do not confirm an established hypothesis, theory or widely held assumption.
Interdisciplinary negative findings
Negative results at the intersection of fields, including translational research. Interdisciplinary manuscripts may be handled by editors from more than one field.
Emerging technology
Negative results from novel technologies and their scientific applications. Submissions must demonstrate scientific rigor beyond technical troubleshooting.
Where the line falls
Outside the remit
The journal does not consider positive confirmatory results, purely theoretical speculation without empirical testing, unsupported opinion without data, or studies lacking methodological rigor and transparency.
Confirmatory results
Studies that confirm their hypothesis or successfully replicate a positive finding.
Insufficient design
Research whose design or controls cannot support the conclusions drawn, or whose conclusions overstate the absence of an effect. Inconclusive findings and evidence-supported methodological failures remain eligible when they are reported transparently with proportionate conclusions.
Insufficient data or detail
Studies lacking the detail needed for replication, datasets too incomplete to support the stated conclusions, or preliminary findings without adequate follow-up analysis. Underpowered or terminated studies remain eligible when their conclusions are proportionate to the evidence.
Unsupported opinion
Unsupported opinion without data, speculative or theoretical argument, commentary on the negative effects of technology, and policy or societal critique that are not grounded in empirical data or a systematic or critical synthesis of evidence.
Accepted article types
Article types
The journal accepts four article types. Each is assessed against the scope and evidence requirements set out on this page.
01
Original Research
Experimental, observational or computational studies reporting negative, null, non-confirmatory or inconclusive findings, including unsuccessful replications.
02
Review Article
Systematic reviews, meta-analyses and critical evidence syntheses addressing negative findings, reproducibility or publication bias.
03
Methods and Tools
Evidence-supported evaluations documenting methodological limitations, unsuccessful approaches or tools that fail to achieve their intended performance.
04
Short Communication
Concise reports of complete, well-supported negative or null findings with sufficient methodological detail.
What a manuscript needs
Evidence the journal looks for
These apply where relevant to the article type and study design, and they are what peer review examines. What each article type includes is set out in Instructions for Authors.
Design and power
Where applicable to the study design, sample size is justified and authors state whether the study could have detected the effect of interest; this does not apply to evidence synthesis, or to computational or qualitative work where power is not relevant. Preregistration is encouraged and is required for interventional clinical trials; where a study was preregistered, the identifier is given.
Complete reporting
Where outcomes were prespecified, each is reported, including non-significant ones, with effect sizes and confidence intervals where applicable to the study design. Protocol deviations and missing data are described, and conclusions state what the data can and cannot show.
Reporting guidelines
Where applicable to the design: CONSORT for clinical trials, STROBE for observational studies, PRISMA for systematic reviews, ARRIVE for animal research, STARD for diagnostic accuracy, and discipline-specific guidelines.
Data and code
Every empirical research manuscript must include a data-availability statement. Raw data are deposited in a public repository and any analysis code is made available, or the route by which they can be obtained is described.
Ethics
Human-participant research carries institutional review board or ethics committee approval and informed consent, or a waiver documented by the ethics committee, where applicable; animal research carries IACUC or equivalent approval. Conflicts of interest and funding sources are disclosed.
Prior dissemination
Preprints are welcome and conference abstracts are acceptable; thesis chapters are acceptable with disclosure. The work must not have been published in a peer-reviewed venue or be under review elsewhere.
Reading and taking part
Submitting to the journal
Author requirements are set out on Instructions for Authors, the review and ethics framework on Editorial Policies, and published work in the current issue and the archive.
Manuscripts are welcome throughout the year. Single-blind by default; double-blind review is available on request. Manuscripts that proceed to external peer review are normally evaluated by at least two independent subject-matter experts.
Submission routes
Primary route
Alternative route
Assisted route
Authors must use only one submission route for the same manuscript.