Journals could fix that. They could create a category null results and dedicate it a fixed amount of pages (like 20%). Researchers want to be in journals, if this category doesn’t have a lot of submissions it would be much easier to get published.

▲

Bluestein 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

This is great idea.-

Heck, "we tried, and did not get there but ..." should be a category unto itself.-

▲

vouaobrasil 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Journals are mainly interested in profit, not fixing anything.

	▲	mattkrause 3 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		That should be only sort of true. Some of the very high-profile journals are run by non-profits, including: Science (American Association for the Advancement of Science), PNAS, (National Academy of Sciences), eLife (HHMI/Max Planck/Wellcome Trust). A slew of more specialized journals are run by societies too. In theory, they should be willing to lead the charge. In practice, I think they are largely dependent on income from the journals for a lot of their operations and so are reluctant to rock the boat.
	▲	spragl 5 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Surely publishing a result is not in itself costly. But I guess the peer review is. So journals could have a section (the grey pages?) for "unsellable results" that they didnt give a peer review. They would of course need to assess them in some other way, to ensure a reasonable level of quality.