This guide is designed to support reviewers in evaluating manuscripts submitted to Null Scientific, a journal dedicated to publishing negative, null, and unexpected scientific findings. Our aim is to normalize results that don’t confirm hypotheses, report what doesn’t work, and shine a light on the overlooked side of science. These guidelines should help you conduct thoughtful, fair, and timely reviews. If you have any further questions, please contact the Editorial Office.

 

Our Philosophy on Peer Review

Traditional publication systems often undervalue null and negative results, contributing to publication bias and wasted research efforts. Null Scientific exists to counter this trend by providing a rigorous platform for results that challenge expectations, fail to replicate, or demonstrate that methods or interventions do not work.

We believe peer review should focus on the soundness, transparency, and reproducibility of the research process, not whether the results are "positive" or "novel."

To ensure timely and fair reviews, we request that reviewers return comments within 4 weeks of accepting/receiving a manuscript.

All manuscripts submitted to Null Scientific undergo double-anonymous peer review: both reviewers and authors remain anonymous to one another throughout the process. Direct contact with authors is not permitted. Reviewers are expected to adhere to the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

 

Why is Peer Review Important?

Peer review at Null Scientific ensures that research is evaluated for:

• Methodological rigor (were the study design and analyses appropriate, even if results were null?)
• Transparency (are failures, limitations, or unexpected results described openly and in detail?)
• Reproducibility (are methods and data reported with enough clarity to allow others to replicate?)
• Contribution to knowledge (does the paper provide value by preventing duplication of effort, highlighting limitations, or correcting the record?)

By focusing on these principles, peer review helps ensure that null and negative findings become part of the permanent scientific record, reducing bias and strengthening trust in published research.

The Peer Reviewer’s Role

When invited to review a manuscript:

• Respond promptly. If you cannot complete the review, decline quickly to avoid delaying the process.
• Declare conflicts of interest. If in doubt, seek clarification from the editorial office.
• Assess suitability. Only accept reviews if you have sufficient expertise to evaluate the methods, interpretation, and relevance.

Confidentiality and Integrity

• Manuscripts under review, including data and figures, must remain strictly confidential.
• Peer reviewers must not upload unpublished material to public or insecure platforms, including generative AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT or other LLM-based services), which may store or reuse the content.
• Reviews must be written by the reviewer directly, without the use of automated AI-generated reports.
• Any references you cite in your review should be accurate, verifiable, and relevant.

Writing Your Review

Reviews should be:

• Objective and constructive. Focus on the science, not the authors.
• Supportive of open reporting. Encourage clear descriptions of null, negative, or failed experiments.
• Respectful. Avoid hostile, dismissive, or derogatory language.
• Actionable. Provide suggestions for improving clarity, transparency, or methodological detail where possible.

When evaluating, ask:

• Was the study design appropriate for the research question?
• Were analyses conducted correctly and reported transparently?
• Are limitations acknowledged and discussed fairly?
• Does the manuscript contribute value to the broader research community, even if results are negative or inconclusive?

Ethical Considerations

• Uphold the confidentiality of authors and their work.
• Avoid using unpublished data or insights from the manuscript for personal research.
• Maintain impartiality, evaluate the quality of the science, not the direction of the results.
• Consult the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers for further guidance.

In summary: Peer review for Null Scientific is not about judging whether results are exciting or confirmatory, but about ensuring that research is reported with rigor, honesty, and clarity, no matter the outcome.

Conflicting Interests

To maintain the integrity and impartiality of the peer review process, reviewers must declare any competing interests before agreeing to evaluate a manuscript. A competing interest may be financial, professional, or personal and can include (but is not limited to):

• Financial ties to companies, organizations, or products related to the research.

• Professional or academic relationships with the authors (e.g., past collaborations, mentorship, institutional affiliation).

• Personal circumstances that could bias judgment, either positively or negatively.

If you are unsure whether something constitutes a competing interest, please disclose it to the editorial office for guidance.

Reviewers with significant conflicts should decline the invitation to review. Transparency is essential to ensure that manuscripts are evaluated fairly and that the scientific record remains trustworthy.