Editing Motivation for SDF (section)

===Publishing incentives===
Work published in high end journals like Nature favor “illuminating, unexpected, surprising” positive results, as they state outright in their submission requirements.<ref>Springer Nature’s editorial criteria and processes page: https://www.nature.com/nature/for-authors/editorial-criteria-and-processes</ref>  '''The decentralized and distributed nature of science suffers when it depends on this unfortunate yet understandable for-profit, centralized, marketing-focused, news-media internet business model. ''' Data and interpretation-sharing amongst scientists is essential for scientific work, for education, and for the democratization of the knowledge.  ''However, “illuminating, unexpected, surprising” positive results only account for a very small percentage of useable research.'' Most hypotheses tested in research will have negative results, or will start with single observations. At present, these only account for ~10% of all published works.  A narrative can be constructed only after a string of research has been completed.  However, to get published, the story must be “big enough.”  '''In order to get published, scientists will sit on research for years even after it is complete, spending their time crafting an exciting narrative; or, they oversell the significance of their research.''' We might be familiar with such narratives from clickbait articles such as “Studies show chocolate can help you lose weight,” but the problem affects all the scientific disciplines, even harder sciences such as physics.

This hyperfocus on purely validated, positive results is a serious problem with the current publishing system: single observation papers, negative results papers, and replication papers are not profitable but provide important context, – not attention grabbing and hard manage publication volume with current “quality” standards. Single observation studies are much more easily checked and distributable.  Negative results provide important contextual information about a body of work. These two types of research are essential players in the scientific research ecosystem, but they are effectively being discouraged by the nature of the system. '''By using a reputation structure that incentivizes these types of research, the Scientific Publishing DAO will provide avenues for affordability, functionality, and replicability, improving public trust in scientific research and the health of falsifiable disciplines in general.'''