About WASTE
A record of ideas that failed, experiments that didn't work, and hypotheses that didn't survive testing — not because they are useless, but because they contain knowledge the world cannot afford to lose.
Our Mission
Many scientific ideas never become publications because experiments failed, hypotheses were disproven, or results were inconclusive. These outcomes are often discarded. WASTE treats these results as valuable intellectual artifacts rather than failures.
The platform records the hidden majority of research work: attempts, mistakes, revisions, and unexpected outcomes. Science progresses through trial and error, but only successes are usually published. WASTE documents the rest of the process.
Don't let it be completely wasted. Someone might be enlightened by your thoughts.
Our Vision
Scientific discovery rarely follows a straight path. Many ideas fail before one succeeds. WASTE documents these attempts so the lessons they contain are not lost. We preserve knowledge that would normally disappear.
We envision a scientific ecosystem where failure is recognized as a valuable contribution to knowledge — indexed in major databases, integrated with research workflows, and recognized as legitimate scholarly output.
Let every failure become searchable, citable, and reusable, thereby reducing repeated trial and error and scientific waste.
Editorial Principles
Our review process evaluates contributions on rigor and utility, not novelty or outcomes.
Methodological Rigor
We evaluate submissions based on the quality of methodology and documentation, not outcomes. Sound experimental design matters regardless of results.
Completeness of Documentation
Every submission must include sufficient detail for replication attempts: materials, methods, parameters, and boundary conditions.
Reusability
Structured templates ensure that failure information is captured in searchable, machine-readable formats that can inform future research.
Transparency
We maintain clear policies on peer review, editorial processes, and conflict of interest. Optional open peer review enhances accountability.
Scope & Acceptance Criteria
We Accept
- Failed experiments with documented methodology
- Null results from properly designed studies
- Replication failures with transparent protocols
- Abandoned hypotheses with supporting evidence
- Methodological dead-ends with lessons learned
- Negative-result datasets with documentation
We Do Not Accept
- Submissions without data or methodology
- Purely anecdotal accounts without verification
- Unverifiable claims about others' research
- Content lacking reusable information
- Emotional venting without scientific value
- Plagiarized or fabricated content
Development Roadmap
Our path to becoming a fully indexed, recognized academic journal.
Foundation
Establish editorial board, develop submission templates, obtain e-ISSN, set up DOI registration with Crossref.
Launch
Begin accepting submissions, implement peer review processes, publish first articles with DOIs.
Indexing
Achieve Google Scholar indexing, apply to DOAJ, develop API and OAI-PMH endpoints.
Growth
Expand editorial board, pursue Scopus/WoS indexing, launch dataset repository integration.
Join the Movement
Help us build the infrastructure for open scientific failure.