blog

Last month we published an article by Mark Peterson of Indiana University, about the genetics of song birds. Mark’s work looked for sequence variants of two genes (known to affect migration) between migratory and non-migratory birds, but did not find a correlation in the species he studied.  His paper received positive feedback from referees, and was rapidly indexed. Here, Mark answers a few questions about his work and about the importance of publishing negative results. (And remember, until the end of August we’re waiving the article processing fee on all negative results papers!)

 

In a nut shell, can you summarize what your study is about?

Recent reports have suggested a link between two genes (CLOCK and ADCYAP1) and migratory or seasonal behaviors. Our goal was to determine whether these genes explained variation in migratory behavior in the songbird genus Junco by comparing species and sub-species that differ in whether and how far they migrate. We initially predicted that we would find longer alleles in more migratory taxa thus confirming earlier findings.

 

Why did you opt to publish the work in F1000Research?

As a finishing graduate student, I have been very interested in looking at new publishing models, seeing where the field is headed. I have made an effort to publish my research in open-access journals, and when I discovered the new open-review model of F1000Research, I knew that I had to publish some of my work there. When I received positive reviews from another journal, but was rejected because it was a largely replicative study with a negative result, F1000Reseach was clearly the perfect place for this manuscript.

 

What is your personal view as a researcher about negative results and making them a part of the scientific literature?

The divide between negative and positive results has puzzled me: if a question is worth asking, surely it is just as worthwhile to know that the answer is “no” as it is to know that the answer is “yes.” Our lab makes a conscious effort to publish negative results, though often these results are part of a package with a larger set of positive results.  Including negative results can delay publication and potentially reduce the impact of the positive results, but I think that negative results are hugely important to the scientific literature, as they advance knowledge and can prevent other researchers from conducting the same study, or relying on findings as general when in fact they are not.

 

Once you had chosen to publish your work in F1000Research, how did you find the publication process?

The editorial and publication process at F1000Research has been fantastic from start to finish. The editorial and production team both provided great feedback on the formatting of the article, and there were no delays in the process. This has easily been the best editorial experience I have had with a journal. The entire process from my submission to online, formatted publication was 11 days which was even better than I had hoped. The article looks great, and I especially enjoy the commenting system in the html version. I hope that this aspect will provide a platform for conversation with other researchers interested in our research.

 

Would you choose to publish in F1000Research again and would you recommend it to other researchers?

The true test of this journal will be in how it is received by the general scientific community. I firmly believe that open peer review has the potential to be the wave of the future, and I have already suggested that several other researchers look at F1000Research. That may take time, and I look forward to watching this journal closely in the coming months.

 

Below: one of the figures from the paper shows no correlation between ADCYAP1 allele length and birds of distinct migratory behavior.