<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="overflow-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;"><div><font size="4">After several years of absence, </font><span style="font-size: large;">the session that </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">permits to help others not to repeat the same mistake, </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">or to present how understanding why a simulation/model failed systematically participated to your understanding of geoscience processes or simply gave you a new idea, </span></div><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><font size="4">is back ! </font></div><div><br></div><div><font size="4">Better than that it is becoming more multi-disciplinary. </font></div><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><font size="4">Please do not hesitate to submit your second abstract to </font></div><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><div class="co_mto_programme-session-block-title"><span class="link-coloured"><font size="4">Setting the stage for failed models and negative results | PICO</font></span></div><div class="co_mto_programme-session-block-cosponsoring-coorganizing"><font size="4">Co-organized by GD11/GM12/SM2</font></div><div class="co_mto_programme-session-block-links"><a href="https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/z9FwCYW8NocD78RZ3c0iKUa?domain=meetingorganizer.copernicus.org" class="co_mto_loa-link-as so_login d-block d-md-inline" watchdogoldonclick="null"><font size="4">Abstract submission</font></a></div></div><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><font size="4">All best </font></div><div><nobr><font size="4"><br></font></nobr></div><div><font size="4"><nobr>Jonas Pyschik,</nobr><span style="font-family: -webkit-standard;"> </span><nobr>Jan Henrik Blöthe<a href="https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/LkRvCZY1Nqi76GZRMhjPOy_?domain=meetingorganizer.copernicus.org" data-target="c" data-target-node="".co_mto_programme-session-block[data-id=49322] .co_mto_programme-session-block-so"" title="Public information on Jan Henrik Blöthe" class="ml-1 co_publicUserDetails-Button text-shaded" data-u="dc6378a5d698c2b5dee67c5008c6a7dc"><span class="co-search"></span></a>,</nobr><span style="font-family: -webkit-standard;"> </span><nobr>Susanne Buiter<a href="https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/LkRvCZY1Nqi76GZRMhjPOy_?domain=meetingorganizer.copernicus.org" data-target="c" data-target-node="".co_mto_programme-session-block[data-id=49322] .co_mto_programme-session-block-so"" title="Public information on Susanne Buiter" class="ml-1 co_publicUserDetails-Button text-shaded" data-u="4615384f67d36c2063710a4caaf85733"><span class="co-search"></span></a>,</nobr><span style="font-family: -webkit-standard;"> </span><nobr>Laetitia Le Pourhiet and</nobr><span style="font-family: -webkit-standard;"> </span><nobr>Cedric Thieulot</nobr></font></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Detailed description : </div><div><span style="font-family: -webkit-standard; font-size: medium;">“Trial and error” is one of the fundamental principles of science, yet the errors are seldom published. Failed experiments, including negative results, statistically insignificant data, and imperfect modelling, are all natural parts of the scientific journey. However, publication bias, the tendency to only publish positive outcomes, leaves out a significant part of the story.</span><br><span style="font-family: -webkit-standard; font-size: medium;">In the Geosciences, as in other science fields, a study may have better chances to be accepted for publication in scientific literature if it confirms a theory or conceptual idea that is well accepted in the community or if it reaches a positive result. The cases that fail in their test of a new method or idea often end up in a drawer (which is why publication bias is also sometimes called the “file drawer effect”). Additionally, physically sound simulations may remain unpublished even when they could correspond to a concept that has not yet been considered because of, for example, scarce data. Conversely, negative results such as numerical methods that fail to converge or that turn out not to be worth pursuing also never get published. This is potentially a waste of time and resources within our community as other scientists may set about testing the same idea or model setup without being aware of previous failed attempts.</span><br><span style="font-family: -webkit-standard; font-size: medium;">This session aims at discussing the issues surrounding publication bias and how to learn from failed models and negative results. We encourage constructive discussions of unexpected, controversial, failed and/or negative results from all disciplines of the Geosciences.</span></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><br><div>
<meta charset="UTF-8">Laetitia LE POURHIET, Professor <br>Institut des Sciences de la Terre de Paris<br>UMR 7193 - Sorbonne Université<br>Faculté des Sciences et d'Ingénierie - Tour 46-0,<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>2ème étage, Bureau 206, case 129<br>4 place Jussieu 75252 Paris Cedex 05 - France<br>Téléphone: +33 1 44 27 58 83
</div>
<br></body></html>