> The desirability of null results need to be recognized and somewhat consensual

If it is interesting you should also find it interesting when you read it 30 years in the future. You don't need other people. It's a nice feeling when other people want to look at what you are doing, sure, but don't put the cart before the horse here. Publish first and prove to others that there is something of value there. They are not going to magically see the value beforehand. That is not how the human typically functions.

It's not like you have to invent the printing press to do it. Putting your work up on a website for the entire world to see is easy peasy. Just do it!

> Ideally, null or positive result alike, the experiments and the studies need to be solid and convincing enough.

No need to let perfect become the enemy of good. Publishing your haphazard salting experiment isn't apt to be terribly convincing, but it gets you into the habit of publishing. Eventually you'll come around to something that actually is interesting and convincing. It's telling if someone isn't willing to do this.

> The student was able to publish, these null results felt somewhat surprising and counter intuitive, so it's not like it's impossible

Exactly. Anything worthy of the major leagues will have no trouble getting formally published. But not everything is. And that's okay. You can still publish it yourself. If you want to play baseball, there is no need to wait around for the MLB to call, so to speak... Just do it!

> you are thinking I'm talking about failed research [...] it just needs to be widely seen as not failed research.

Yes, I am talking about what is widely seen as failed research. It may not actually be failed research in a practical sense, but the moniker is still apt, especially given that you even call it that yourself. I guess I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

> I guess I don't understand what you are trying to say here

I guess I failed to get my point across to you and I doubt I will suddenly manage to do it this far in the discussion. Nature failed this too apparently, so I guess that doesn't tell much about me.

> Putting your work up on a website for the entire world to see is easy peasy. Just do it!

I have already said why this is not an option. I'm terribly confused as to why you are even suggesting it. Recognized research doesn't currently happen in blog posts.

> it gets you into the habit of publishing. Eventually you'll come around to something that actually is interesting and convincing.

Irrelevant? Patronizing?

The issue is not at the individual level anyway. It is a systemic issue. We are discussing on a post from Nature called "Researchers value null results, but struggle to publishing them". Here's your systemic issue, raised in one of highest impact journals.

> It's telling if someone isn't willing to do this.

What does it tell you? That research is not the person's current job maybe?

> I am talking about what is widely seen as failed research

And this is my point. It shouldn't be.

> you even call it that yourself

Nope. At best I used quotes around the word "failing".

I don't see this discussion progressing and surfacing interesting points anymore. You are disrespectful. Your points are subtly moving targets. You are sharing irrelevant advice to someone who doesn't need them. You are sharing irrelevant baseball and food comparisons (that I tried to adopt anyway). You are misrepresenting what I wrote. You don't really engage the actual topic. The whole discussion is looping.

I believe you are trolling me. I tried to assume my feeling about this was wrong and gave you too much attention as a result. I should have stopped earlier. That'll teach me.

If Nature can't convince you there's an issue that has absolutely nothing to do with me, I won't neither.

I'm done.

Bye!