[Geodynamics] EOS2.8 : Session on negative results and failed model is back at EGU !

[Laetitia Le Pourhiet]

After several years of absence, the session that 

permits to help others not to repeat the same mistake, 
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, 

is back ! 

Better than that it is becoming more multi-disciplinary.  

Please do not hesitate to submit your second abstract to 

Setting the stage for failed models and negative results | PICO
Co-organized by GD11/GM12/SM2
Abstract submission <https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/z9FwCYW8NocD78RZ3c0iKUa?domain=meetingorganizer.copernicus.org>


All best 

Jonas Pyschik, Jan Henrik Blöthe <https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/LkRvCZY1Nqi76GZRMhjPOy_?domain=meetingorganizer.copernicus.org>, Susanne Buiter <https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/LkRvCZY1Nqi76GZRMhjPOy_?domain=meetingorganizer.copernicus.org>, Laetitia Le Pourhiet and Cedric Thieulot


Detailed description : 
“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.
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 Additionally, physically sound simulations may remain unpublished even when they could correspond to a concept that has not yet been considered because of, for example, scarce data.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.
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.



Laetitia LE POURHIET, Professor 
Institut des Sciences de la Terre de Paris
UMR 7193 - Sorbonne Université
Faculté des Sciences et d'Ingénierie - Tour 46-0, 2ème étage, Bureau 206, case 129
4 place Jussieu 75252 Paris Cedex 05 - France
Téléphone: +33 1 44 27 58 83

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.sydney.edu.au/pipermail/geodynamics/attachments/20240107/e9761a6e/attachment.htm>