| Abstract: | It is well known that a number of research outcomes are not reported (the so‐called ‘file drawer problem’). It is generally assumed that what is not reported are ‘negative results’. Our study approaches the issue from a new angle by exploring what researchers perceive to be ‘unpublishable’. A survey regarding ‘unpublishables’ was sent out to 2,535 faculty members at Indiana University. Forty of these individuals consented to in‐depth interviews, which more fully explored these academics' views on the issue of unpublishable work. Our results indicate that there are several types of research besides negative results that are perceived to be unpublishable yet worthy of publication. Moreover, there is a great diversity within and across disciplines as to what constitutes ‘unpublishable’ research. Respondents indicated that academic discourse would benefit from the formal dissemination of papers that included inconclusive or null results, as well as replication and refutation studies. The results of our study suggest that there is a perceived gap in scholarly communication, which is to the detriment of science. These results can be used by administrators, educators, and publishers in order to refine scholarly communication practices so as to create a more robust, accurate literature and to inform future generations of researchers. |
