Journal of Trial and Error, Utrecht (2025)

08/12/2025

New on the Cultures of Trial and Error blog series:

“Field-specific barriers to performing replications”

What does it actually mean to replicate a study - and why is it far harder in some disciplines than in others?

In this new post, Candida Sánchez Burmester, Maha M. Said, Martin Bush, Cyrus Mody and Nicole Nelson push back against the idea that replicability is a universal benchmark for good science. Using examples from psychology, cancer biology, the nanosciences, and observational astronomy, they show how much replication work depends on field-specific skills, infrastructures, materials, and research cultures.

The contrasts are striking: the psychology replication project matched more than a hundred studies with volunteer teams, while its cancer biology counterpart struggled with soaring costs, unavailable reagents, and years-long timelines. In nanoscience, replication may require building a chain of labs and expertise across chemistry, biology, and microscopy. And in astronomy - where data can’t be recollected - replication takes the form of tracking down and re-analyzing vast archives rather than redoing observations.

The piece argues for more comparative research on how different fields structure, constrain, and enable replication work - and what that means for disciplines to strengthen research integrity.

Read the article here:
https://blog.trialanderror.org/cultures-of-trial-and-error-1

Presented by JOTE and the NanoBubbles project.

28/11/2025

Is it time for a revolution in medicine? The drive of reducing ‘waste’ in health research has dominated the research cycle for decades, an effort to increase quality of published work and decrease low-relevance data. But research increasingly suggests that a big form of waste is due to be eliminated: The waste of ‘rigorous failure’.

This refers to articles that are rigorous, in the sense that they are well-designed and justifiable, yet failures, in that the study yields a null or negative result.

In healthcare, this research will not directly lead to a breakthrough, a cure, or a better patient experience. But not publishing it, as is often the case now, throws away the valuable knowledge inside, and the benefits such as:

-Preventing duplicate research, which directly prevents waste
-Learning from mistakes, which leads to a better way to tackle problems
-A greater source of knowledge for meta-analyses
-A more complete and diverse dataset for machine learning, an increasingly powerful tool for analysis.

This special issue of the Journal of Trial and Error focuses on rethinking ‘failure’, and it’s role in scientific progress. Read it here: https://journal.trialanderror.org/pub/embracing-error/release/1

17/11/2025

How does attention shape addiction?

The new research reflection published in the Journal of Trial and Error suggests it might not be as straightforward as once thought.

In “Attentional bias and to***co smoking frequency: A reflection on Bartlett et al. (2022),” Copeland examines findings from Bartlett and colleagues, who tested whether daily and non-daily smokers differ in the significance of their attention to smoking cues. She argues that the widely used visual probe task has poor reliability and that there is no meaningful difference in attention.

Rather than treating attentional bias as a fixed trait, the paper argues that for to***co smokers, it’s a dynamic, context-dependent process. This process is shaped by moment-to-moment motivation, craving, and environment. The author also commends Bartlett et al. for their open-science approach, including pre-registration, data transparency, and honest reporting of coding errors. These model practices foster trust and increase accuracy in scientific research.

Looking forward, integrating eye-tracking, computational modelling, and real-world data may finally reveal how attention and value interact in addiction.

If you are interested, please read the article here: https://journal.trialanderror.org/pub/attentional-bias/release/1.

13/11/2025

Is the foundation of scientific research crumbling?

Scientific progress is incremental - it builds on the knowledge base of previous research. This requires the knowledge base to be self-correcting: problematic articles must be flagged and fixed or retracted. But in some fields, the self-correction process seems to be under pressure.

Researchers of the Radboud University studying brain injury after hemorrhage found such a field. Despite many studies being done on this topic, there are still no effective remedies against this complication. However, when they decided to conduct a systematic review of animal studies in the field, they found an unusually high number of articles that claimed successes with many different drugs tested.

After a brief comparison of the articles identified some suspicious image-duplication, they changed their research goal and started looking for problematic images. Using multiple tools and methods, they found that a shocking 40% of papers on this topic had image-related issues. Including, for example, reusing (parts of) the same image for different experimental conditions, suggesting either manipulation or a lack of data oversight.

While genuine mistakes can happen, the high number of problems lead the researchers to conclude that the self-correction of knowledge in this field has stalled. If problematic papers aren’t being flagged, and if flagged papers aren’t corrected or retracted swiftly, the knowledge base becomes increasingly poisoned with bad data.

Read the article here:

https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3003438

The authors are: René Aquarius, Merel van de Voort, Hieronymus D. Boogaarts, P. Manon Reesink, Kimberley E. Wever

Interested in reading more about self-correction in science? The Journal of Trial & Error has a series on this very topic! Read it here:

https://blog.trialanderror.org/cultures-of-trial-and-error-identifying-and-overcoming-barriers-in-science-correction

Have you ever identified mistakes in published articles? Or gotten feedback on an article after publishing? What were the consequences? We would love to hear from you!

06/11/2025

Honesty, Openness, and Cultural Change in Science

Last month we hosted the first-ever Trial & Error Symposium at the University Museum Utrecht - a day dedicated to rethinking how science deals with failure, uncertainty, and openness.

Researchers, editors, and students came together to discuss everything from publication bias and retractions to the value of communicating uncertainty. What stood out most was the shared belief that science grows stronger when we make space for failed experiments, null results, and revisions.

We also awarded the Trial & Error Award, celebrating the courage to publish scientific failures. Thank you to all our attendants, co-organizers and sponsors!

You can read the full report of the day here:
https://blog.trialanderror.org/trial-and-error-symposium-2025-honesty-openness-and-cultural-change

30/10/2025

Does breaking protocol lead to new discoveries?

An undergraduate student researching electricity generation from wood did exactly that. While researching biomass gasification (a method of transforming wood pellets into a gaseous fuel) he occasionally skipped the time-consuming drying phase due to time pressure. But when he analysed the results of the project, the non-drying experiments seem to have had a higher efficiency. Through a clever analogy with a popular snack, and the courage to challenge the details of current models, the student discovered the Popcorn effect.

Reflections on this story, both by the original student Maximilian Roßmann and by Wendy Ross, offer insights into the forces at play. The minor deviation from protocol, the popcorn-analogy that connected seemingly unrelated things, and the knowledge of the topic that connected the dots.

The articles are certainly not advocating for increased sloppiness in conducting science (nor for increasing the time pressure of undergraduate students in hopes for more accidental discoveries). But they show how unexpected outcomes can lead to new understanding, and open gateways to discoveries that are easy to miss.

Read the author’s reflection here: https://journal.trialanderror.org/pub/popcorn-effect/release/1
And the reply by Ross here: https://journal.trialanderror.org/pub/popcorn-commentary/release/2

24/10/2025

Have you checked JOTE's latest article on this potential new method for studying brain health?

The article explores a proof-of-concept method to detect blood–brain barrier (BBB)-specific extracellular vesicles (EVs) circulating in peripheral blood. Since the BBB is difficult to study non-invasively, identifying EVs that originate from it could provide a new biomarker for neurovascular health and disease.

The authors outline an experimental approach to isolate and characterize these vesicles, focusing on their potential as indicators of BBB integrity and further brain pathology.

While their findings demonstrate the feasibility of detecting such EVs, they also highlight technical and biological challenges. They distinguish BBB-derived EVs from other endothelial sources and particular standardizing detection methods.

The study concludes that, although preliminary, this approach could pave the way for minimally invasive monitoring of brain health.

Read more here: https://journal.trialanderror.org/pub/extracellular-vesicles/release/1

15/10/2025

Have you read the recent Editorial in Nature regarding disinformation about acetaminophen by American political or “public health” figures?

The editorial warns against the deliberate misuse of scientific uncertainty in public health and policy to mislead or manipulate. It centers on a recent US example: the FDA’s proposal to change the labeling of acetaminophen (paracetamol), warning that prenatal use might be associated with neurological disorders like autism or ADHD. The editorial argues that the FDA’s public messaging overstates the certainty of that link, ignoring contrary evidence and nuances such as publication bias.

The authors contend that when public figures make definitive claims (e.g., “Don’t take Tylenol”) based on contested or unsettled science, they risk “weaponizing” uncertainty. This, in turn, creates ambiguity in political or social leverage. This can erode trust in science, misinform decision-making, and ultimately harm public health outcomes.

The piece calls on scientists, regulators, and communicators to present the full complexity of findings (including uncertainty), resist simplification for rhetorical gains, and avoid portraying debates as binary when they are not.

What do you think about this?

Read more here: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-03167-5?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20251009&utm_source=nature_etoc&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=CONR_41586_AWA1_GL_DTEC_054CI_TOC-251009

13/10/2025

We had a wonderful day at the Trial & Error Award Symposium!

Thank you to everyone who joined us at the University Museum Utrecht.

We were proud to welcome a diverse audience representing many different academic backgrounds. All of our guests contributed to an open atmosphere that fostered critical reflection on positive publication bias, error correction, culture change in research and publishing systems, and the value of sharing failures.

Here are some of the key takeaways from the event:

- Noémie Aubert Bonn’s keynote examined positive publication bias - who is complicit and responsible for it, and how academic fields can move forward.
- Lucie White’s talk on enduring uncertainty and disagreement underscored the importance of understanding why uncertainty persists.
- The presentation by Maximilian Roßmann and Auste Valinciute showed that stereotypes and misconduct often dominate the headlines.

The day was filled with engaging discussions about the trials and errors inherent to academia - topics that are rarely brought to light but deeply important.

A special thank you to our co-organizers and sponsors - De Nieuwe Utrechtse School, Young Academy Twente, Utrecht Young Academy, Museum of Failure, Descartes Centre, GKG Impact Grant, and NWO OS Fund. Your support is always appreciated in hosting such pivotal events.

06/10/2025

We are excited to welcome you all tomorrow from 10.00 to 17.30!

Just a reminder that the location is Lange Nieuwstraat 106, 3512 PN. If you’d like to type it into your maps, here is the link - https://www.google.com/maps/place/University+Museum+Utrecht+%7C+UMU/@52.0848841,5.1258689,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m6!3m5!1s0x47c66f56d1ae798b:0xcda714a1665eca60!8m2!3d52.0848841!4d5.1258689!16s%2Fg%2F12389my9?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MTAwMS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D.

For those joining us from home, the livestream can be found here - https://youtube.com/live/UaCo7O0nCDo?feature=share.

See you soon!

24/09/2025

Big News!
The Journal of Trial and Error is officially listed on the 𝐃𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐎𝐩𝐞𝐧 𝐀𝐜𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐉𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐬 (𝐃𝐎𝐀𝐉)! 🎉

After years of hard work, our mission is now even more accessible to researchers worldwide.

🌟 Find us here: https://doaj.org/toc/2667-1204 🌟

As a reminder - we are open to receiving 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐬 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬! Our commitment remains to publish methodologically rigorous research with null results: the so-called ‘failures’ that other journals often overlook. We also publish interesting methodological mistakes that others can learn from.

A huge thank you to everyone who helped us reach this milestone. Let’s keep pushing the boundaries of knowledge! 🙌

18/09/2025

Have you reflected on how to combat widespread misinformation in your community? This recently published article may have just the suggestion!

The reflection refers to the study ‘Gamified Inoculation Against Misinformation in India: A Randomized Control Trial’. The authors of the reflection discuss the gamified ‘inoculation’ game in rural India, designed to help people resist online misinformation; however, the study failed to produce measurable effects. The reflecting authors argue that two key factors explain this outcome:

-Digital barriers: Many participants had limited experience with smartphones or tablets, reducing their ability to engage with a digitally delivered intervention.

-Cultural-historical factors: The article suggests that people who primarily use ‘everyday concepts’ (concrete, experience-based reasoning) may not benefit from interventions that assume ‘logical concept’ thinking fostered by formal schooling.

To overcome these issues, the authors recommend a strategy called Intervention Mapping; a systematic, step-by-step method to adapt interventions to local contexts, ensuring materials, delivery channels, and reasoning styles align with the target population’s culture and education levels. They also emphasize the value of bottom-up, community-co-designed interventions over simply translating Western digital strategies.

Read more and explore their method here:
https://journal.trialanderror.org/pub/gamified-inoculation/release/2

Journal of Trial and Error

08/12/2025

28/11/2025

17/11/2025

13/11/2025

06/11/2025

30/10/2025

24/10/2025

15/10/2025

13/10/2025

06/10/2025

24/09/2025

18/09/2025

Adres

Website

Meldingen

Contact

Snelkoppelingen

Delen

Type