Search

Materials informatics, the application of data science and machine learning to materials research, has revolutionized the discovery and design of new materials. However, the field faces significant challenges in reporting failure cases, negative results, and biases, which are often silenced in the literature. This review examines documented failures in materials informatics, such as data bias, model overoptimism, and reproducibility issues, and highlights the systemic factors that lead to their underreporting. Drawing on 30 recent peer-reviewed articles, we explore themes including data quality, algorithmic limitations, and publication bias. The objectives are to assess what is typically documented, identify silenced aspects, such as unsuccessful experiments, and propose strategies for more transparent reporting. By addressing these gaps, the review aims to foster a more robust and trustworthy materials informatics ecosystem, ultimately accelerating sustainable innovation in materials science.

This review systematically examines the treatment of absence and null results in the materials machine learning literature spanning 2017–2022, drawing exclusively on a curated set of 30 peer-reviewed publications and foundational works that address publication bias, negative findings, and reproducibility challenges in data-driven materials discovery. Through a targeted search strategy across databases such as Web of Science, Scopus, and arXiv using terms including “null result,” “negative result,” “publication bias,” “file drawer,” “failed synthesis,” and “reproducibility” combined with materials informatics keywords, the analysis reveals a persistent imbalance: while successful predictions and syntheses dominate published outputs, systematic documentation of failed predictions, unsuccessful syntheses, null correlations, and abandoned model architectures remains exceedingly rare. What is currently reported tends to be limited to negative outcomes that coincidentally reveal mechanistic insights or contradict high-profile hypotheses, whereas what is systematically unreported encompasses the vast majority of unsuccessful hyperparameter searches, negative active learning campaigns, and non-discoveries that yield no novel materials meeting target criteria. The typology of absence and null results developed here identifies six distinct categories—negative predictive outcomes, null hypothesis non-rejection, failed synthesis, non-discovery, failed replication, and abandoned architecture—each carrying unique implications for scientific progress. The consequences of this non-reporting include severe overestimation of model performance, widespread redundant experimental effort, a false sense of methodological consensus across the field, and slowed overall discovery rates as potentially informative negative signals remain invisible. Ultimately, this review offers concrete recommendations for authors, journals, and the broader community to shift incentives toward transparent reporting of absence, thereby restoring balance to the materials AI literature and accelerating reliable data-driven discovery.