Multiple factors contribute to publication bias. For instance, once a scientific finding is well established, it may become newsworthy to publish reliable papers that fail to reject the null hypothesis. It has been found that the most common reason for non-publication is simply that investigators decline to submit results, leading to non-response bias. Factors cited as underlying this effect include investigators assuming they must have made a mistake, failure to support a known finding, loss of interest in the topic, or anticipation that others will be uninterested in the null results. The nature of these issues and the problems that have been triggered, have been referred to as the 5 diseases that threaten science, which include: ""significosis", an inordinate focus on statistically significant results; "neophilia", an excessive appreciation for novelty; "theorrhea", a mania for new theory; "arigorium", a deficiency of rigor in theoretical and empirical work; and finally, "disjunctivitis", a proclivity to produce large quantities of redundant, trivial, and incoherent works."