Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

The Journal of Serendipitous and Unexpected Results 153

SilverTooth writes "Often, when watching a science documentary or reading an article, it seems that the scientists were executing a well-laid out plan that led to their discovery. Anyone familiar with the process of scientific discovery realizes that is a far cry from reality. Scientific discovery is fraught with false starts and blind alleys. As a result, labs accumulate vast amounts of valuable knowledge on what not to do, and what does not work. Trouble is, this knowledge is not shared using the usual method of scientific communication: the peer-reviewed article. It remains within the lab, or at the most shared informally among close colleagues. As it stands, the scientific culture discourages sharing negative results. Byte Size Biology reports on a forthcoming journal whose aim is to change this: the Journal of Serendipitous and Unexpected Results. Hopefully, scientists will be able to better share and learn more from each other's experience and mistakes."


This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Journal of Serendipitous and Unexpected Results

Comments Filter:
  • So... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Biff Stu (654099) on Thursday February 04, 2010 @12:28AM (#31019158)

    If the LHC generates an Earth-eating black hole, will it be published here?

  • Re:So... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Asadullah Ahmad (1608869) on Thursday February 04, 2010 @12:38AM (#31019208)
    I don't think so. This Journal will not publish any results that were expected
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, 2010 @12:54AM (#31019280)

    an article for the first issue? covers all questions

    So are we talking:

    Technique X fails on problem Y.

    Sue all music downloads fails to stop piracy?

    Hypothesis X can't be proven using method Y.

    All music downloaders can't be proven to be pirates

    Protocol X peforms poorly for task Y.

    Suing all music downloaders performs poorly for stopping music piracy

    Method X has unexpected fundamental limitations.

    Forcing people to buy music only on CD / Tape / Vinyl doesn't appeal to all customers

    While investigating X, you discovered Y

    While trawling torrent log files for music pirates we also found some great porn

    Model X can't capture the behavior of phenomenon Y.

    Current Music Business Model can't capture the behaviour of generation Y

    Failure X is explained by Y.

    Failing to increase revenue is explained by $0.99 tracks on Apple (damn iPod users) an music pirates too (arrrgh!)

    Assumption X doesn't hold in domain Y.

    Assuming independant music stores will be profitable doesn't hold in the .com domain

    Event X shouldn't happen, but it does.

    People shouldn't want to listen to music for free (damn radio stations, ipods, internet)

  • by InlawBiker (1124825) on Thursday February 04, 2010 @01:49AM (#31019494)
    Don't date Wendy from the admissions office. Spectacular failure.
  • by swanriversean (928620) on Thursday February 04, 2010 @01:50AM (#31019498)

    "using statistical analysis developed by economists to try to draw conclusions"

    this sounds promising

  • by A nonymous Coward (7548) on Thursday February 04, 2010 @02:50AM (#31019730)

    There had been 17 -- but some overlord deleted the others before anyone got a chance to see them. These three escaped censorship because they had already been seen.

    Go ahead -- prove me wrong!

  • by jamesh (87723) on Thursday February 04, 2010 @03:59AM (#31020028)

    And you are basing this on one datum? Have you learned NOTHING??? Go back and try again and see if you get the same outcome.

Make headway at work. Continue to let things deteriorate at home.