Journal of Errology (JoE)
Contributors
For
Create an Account
Journal of Errology (JoE) is a research repository that enables sharing and discussions on those unpublished futile hypotheses, micro research papers, errors, iterations, negative results, false starts, shortfalls, micro-papers and other original stumbles that are part of a larger successful research in biological sciences.
We at JoE believe that along with sharing the successful results and data, as part of an open science effort, it is also important for researchers to share experiences learned from their trials and errors. Every discovery or invention has its fair share of missteps, failures, errors and problems, which result in teaching a valuable lesson and helping compund experience.
Unlike other journals that focus entirely on research papers with negative results or those papers that confirm null hypothesis, we want to hear specifically the unpublished story behind your published papers that very few people know about. The side which gets very little attention, but is vital for the final success of research! Submissions are accepted before, during or after the publication of your papers, to make sure it does not interfere with the publication process.
JoE enables sharing of results, data and experiences learned through these stumbles, which fail to be shared in the final published paper. From entire research papers to those struggles that go behind and ahead of what is published.
Please jump to the aims and scope section on the top to know the benefits of such a repository.
Conventional journals focus only on the positive aspects of research in order to sustain the readers’ interest and to maintain consistent quality. This does not give researchers an opportunity to share the diverse lessons learnt during their research.
Researchers do not give up when faced with repeated disappointments and frustrations, a quality that is not admired as much as it needs to be. Disappointments come in the form of experiments that go against their predicted results and frustrations from results that make no sense or things that should work, but just don’t. It is the number and intensity of these trials and tribulations that distinguish a researcher who has spent decades in laboratories and a student just stepping into the world of research. It is the lessons learned from these instances that make up the experience.
Not just disappointments, conducting research is also a rich learning experience whose lessons go beyond what is published. The unfortunate part - There is no place for these lessons or mini-papers to be shared.
Almost every day researchers around the world discard hypotheses that don’t give the required results in the hope of succeeding in their next hypothesis. According to various estimates, approximately 60 percent of all research fails at some point of time or other, taking with it time, money and other valuable resources along. Nevertheless, this is the nature of research and adds valuable inputs to a researcher's experience and ultimately leading to the sure path to success.
The process of research is a series of hits and misses, where there is a high rate of misses. Compared to researchers a few decades ago, researchers today have a lot more to grasp than their predecessors. The learning/mistakes curve that future researchers have to face is constantly growing, making it harder and longer for future researchers to learn, discover and invent. Researchers cannot afford to make the same mistakes made by earlier researchers. The sub-text is that making the same mistakes that have been already made is detrimental to the overall progress of science.
It is a failure for the entire scientific community to communicate these results. It should be the responsibility of every researcher to pass on the flame of experience to the future researchers in order to keep the flame growing and to grow even brighter. These results have the potential to help other researchers in making better experimental designs and in saving valuable time, resources, hard work, and money of researchers, institutions and organizations.
The learning curve that future researchers have to face is constantly growing, making it harder for future researchers to learn, discover and invent. Hence, making the same mistakes that have been already made, is detrimental to the overall progress of science.
Innovation and invention are daunting to the point of creative paralysis, if one has to carry anew every aspect of a complex system.
Genuine originality relies more on the innovative manipulation and assembly of previous attempts and principles, than it does on the absolute necessity of a new genesis of every step ahead, be it the results of success or failures.
Journal of Errology aims to provide researchers with a place were they can share experiences mostly gained via negative results, futile hypothesis, mistakes, false starts, errors and other stumbles that never get published. Researchers can submit their experiences while conducting research, or or after publishing the papers. All available data will be open access and is protected under creative commons license, whats even more surprising is that we never plan to charge for accepting articles. A repository of such sorts is meant to provide the younger generation of researchers with peer reviewed information that can serve as a source of reference and inspiration for their readings and new research.
Short-term goals of JoE are:
Better Experimental Designs: The kind of information that JoE seeks to make available has the potential to serve researchers in planning better experimental designs with less interference and get healthy ideas for their own research.
Saving Resources: This data can also help researchers in avoiding wastage of resources, time and money, by not repeating the well thought hypothesis that are certain to yield negative results (or in a few cases the particular results that another researcher is seeking for).
Exploiting the Unexpected: JoE also aims to help researchers find the often overlooked and ignored inventions and discoveries from their negative results and inexplicable errors.
Open Science: JoE aims are not just to save a researchers time, money and resources, but also to foster a more generous attitude of collectivism and open source research amongst researchers around the world and increase collaboration and feedback.
Transparency: JoE aims to close the gap between researchers and public. Showing the side of science that the public rarely gets to see, the side filled with disappointments, iterations and frustrations.
Long-term goals of JoE are:
Sharing Experiences: One of our aim is also to provide a medium that serves as a way for researchers to mentor budding researchers and warn them of certain pitfalls their particular area.
Exploiting the Unexpected: JoE also aims to help researchers find the often overlooked and ignored inventions and discoveries from their negative results and inexplicable errors.
Bolder Innovations: By knowing the mistakes already made, researchers can look at innovations beyond what had already been done.
Accelerating Discoveries: Even though these results and data might seem inconclusive at first, they hold the potential of feeding future research and hence save valuable time, money, resources and most important of all, accelerate discoveries in the area of life sciences.
Even though these results and data might seem inconclusive at first, they hold the potential of feeding other research and hence save valuable time, money, resources and most important of all, accelerate discoveries in the area of life sciences. For all those skeptical researchers out there, submit your most crazy ideas that did not work and get feeedback from other researchers who have tried much more crazier things that that and get inputs for future course of action.
What do you have to lose?
Q: What kind of career wise benefits can one expect by sharing on Journal of Errology?
A: All submissions will be citable and we are also in the process of including integrating impact factor using Total-Impact, making it possible to measure a researcher's impact factor. For more benefits, read Journal of Errology: Benefits for a Submitter
Q: Why do we need an editorial and review board?
A: Traditional journals have forever been dependent on editors and reviewers to maintain quality and help researchers make sense of their research, and since we are something in the middle of a Journal and a Repository, we felt the dire need for an editing and reviewing for the submitted articles on our site. However unlike other journals, editing happens at a rapid pace and reviewing happens after the articles go online.
Please ask any questions using the contact us page or mail us at info@bioflukes.com
All entries accepted on or before will be considered for "Radical Research" award.
Winning submission will be chosen by the Panelists and the frequency with which it receives traffic.
All submissions should be in English and shouldn't be published elsewhere.
Submissions for the give away is only valid for continents of North America, South America, Asia and Australia.
