# Celebrating Failures: research submission template

Version 0.1 • Curated pilot • Draft for review • 11 October 2026

Use this editable Markdown file in any text editor. Downloading or completing it does not submit anything or authorize publication. Intake is not open. Keep your completed draft until an approved private review channel is announced.

We welcome careful accounts of negative, null, inconclusive, unexpected, or method-limited results, including unpublished work. A nonsignificant result does not establish that an effect is absent. Describe what the evidence supports and what remains uncertain. Replication, with context, remains valuable.

Do not include participant-level data, identifying patient/participant details, sensitive personal information, confidential employer information, restricted material, or unapproved intellectual property. Use aggregate results and supporting public sources you have permission to share. If the work cannot be described safely, do not submit it.

## A. Research account (potentially public only after separate approval)

### 1. Title and summary
- Working title:
- Field/topic:
- Approximate study period and setting (omit identifying details):
- Study type: [ ] Original study [ ] Replication [ ] Method development [ ] Other:
- Finding type: [ ] Negative/opposite direction [ ] Null/nonsignificant [ ] Inconclusive [ ] Method/instrument failure [ ] Mixed/other:
- Plain-language summary (150–250 words; include the question, approach, result and main limit):

### 2. Question and expectations
- Research question:
- Hypothesis and rationale:
- Primary outcome and comparison:
- Which hypotheses/outcomes were specified before seeing results? Which were exploratory?
- Public preregistration or protocol URL and date, if any; otherwise say “not preregistered”:
- Relation to earlier studies or replication target (public reference/DOI):

### 3. Methods someone else can understand
- Design, procedure and order of steps:
- Materials, equipment/software and versions; public protocol/code URLs:
- Controls/comparators, randomization and blinding, where applicable:
- Measurements, units, timing and quality checks:
- Analysis plan and statistical/model assumptions:
- Deviations from the plan, when they were decided and why:
- Known errors, failed checks or instrument/procedure problems:

### 4. Sample and conditions
- Unit of analysis (for example, independent experiment or sample):
- Planned sample size and rationale; achieved sample size:
- Counts by group/condition and exclusions/missing observations, with reasons:
- Number of independent runs versus technical repeats:
- Relevant recruitment/sampling method and eligibility criteria, described without identifying people:
- Conditions, parameter ranges and context that may affect the result:
- Applicable ethics/oversight approval or exemption status, stated at a high level; do not attach private forms:

### 5. Results and uncertainty
- Primary outcome: estimate, units, comparison/reference and sample size:
- Effect estimate and uncertainty interval (state interval type/level and method), if estimable:
- Descriptive results and variability; aggregate table or public figure URL, if useful:
- Statistical test/model and p-value, if applicable; do not report significance alone:
- Secondary/exploratory results, clearly separated; multiplicity adjustments, if any:
- Sensitivity checks, missing-data handling and robustness checks:
- What was not measured, not estimable or not available, and why:
- Distinguish “did not detect an effect” from evidence of equivalence/no practically important effect. If claiming equivalence, give the prespecified bounds, method and relevant precision:

### 6. Limits and interpretation
- What do the observations support?
- What do they NOT establish?
- Precision/power, design, bias, measurement and generalizability limits:
- Alternative explanations that remain plausible:
- Which findings may be method-limited rather than answers to the original question?

### 7. Lessons and next experiments
- What would you repeat, change or measure next, and why?
- Which conditions might matter for a future replication?
- What can others learn without assuming the finding applies everywhere?
- Questions left open:

### 8. Supporting public material
List title, author/organization, date, DOI/URL, and the specific claim or method each source supports.
- Public protocol/preregistration:
- Public paper/preprint (identify preprint status):
- Public code/materials/aggregate data, if safe and authorized:
- Other public references:
- Material not available publicly and its limitations (do not include private links, credentials or restricted files):
- Funding and relevant competing interests (omit account/payment details):
- Prior publication/submission status and any restrictions relevant to reuse:

## B. Contributor preferences (keep separate from any public account)

Optional public attribution, if later published:
- [ ] Anonymous [ ] Pseudonym: ____ [ ] Name: ____ [ ] Decide later
- Optional public affiliation/ORCID, only if wanted and authorized:
- Collaborator attribution approved by those collaborators:

Optional PRIVATE contact for review questions:
- Contact email (optional):
- [ ] You may contact me about this submission only.

Leave contact out of Part A. Editors must not copy contact details into the public account. Without a contact route, clarification and publication approval may not be possible. Do not add address, phone number, date of birth or other unnecessary personal information.

## C. Review and publication choices (nothing preselected)

Before any future submission, confirm:
- [ ] I created this account or have permission from the relevant rights holders to share it for editorial consideration.
- [ ] Required collaborator, institutional, employer, ethics and other permissions have been checked; unresolved restrictions are disclosed without revealing confidential details.
- [ ] The account contains no sensitive or identifying participant/patient data, restricted records, confidential employer material or unapproved intellectual property.
- [ ] Public links and included material may lawfully be shared; a public URL alone does not establish a reuse license.
- [ ] I understand editorial consideration is not scientific peer review or verification of the underlying experiment.

Review choice:
- [ ] I permit private editorial consideration of this account only. This is NOT permission to publish.

Publication choice at intake:
- [ ] Do not publish; review only.
- [ ] I am interested in publication, but require approval of the final text, attribution and permissions first.

Neither choice authorizes publication now. Editors must present the exact final version and attribution for a separate explicit publication opt-in. Any license or legal agreement must be disclosed and separately accepted by the contributor; this template grants no license.

## D. Editor-only record (not a contributor certification)

- Internal reference / received date:
- Current status: Draft / Received—unreviewed / Clarification requested / Editorially reviewed—publication pending / Published—editorially reviewed, not peer reviewed / Not included / Withdrawn
- Scope, privacy, permissions and public-source checks:
- Claims that remain unverified:
- Questions/revisions needed and reviewer/date:
- Final-version identifier and contributor publication opt-in evidence/date (required before publication):
- Approved public attribution and source/asset permissions:
- Publication URL/date, corrections/version history, if eventually published: