Editorial peer review is strongly skewed towards positive results. While this is hardly surprising, failure to publish negative outcomes biases the information base of medicine. It means that thousands of failed experiments, null or negative results of clinical trials never see the light of day. Dr. Natalie Matosin argues that “Science is, by its nature, a collaborative discipline, and one of the principal reasons why we should report negative results is so our colleagues do not waste their time and resources repeating our findings” (Matosin 2014).