Content area
Embracing uncertainty could lead to better science and build a culture that encourages trustworthy reporting. Novelty should not be a primary criterion for scientific manuscript acceptance, because that encourages scientists to claim a novel result even when uncertainty is high. If evaluating uncertainty became an explicit component of peer review and was prioritized by journals over novelty or the "wow" factor, it could change how people communicate and advance scientific findings. If science is to build efficiently on prior studies, how well the authors account for uncertainty in the study should matter as much as the conclusions. This shift could also encourage science reporters to provide the context of uncertainty behind the studies they cover, giving the public a clearer view of the significance of the findings.