> People who do that with great docs etc get a lot of respect. That's the issue. Publishing run-of-the-mill negative results right now doesn't get you much of

> People who do that with great docs etc get a lot of respect. That's the issue. Publishing run-of-the-mill negative results right now doesn't get you much of anything. I would love to live in a world where hiring committees and funding agencies say "Well, 3/5 of his experiments flopped, but we looked at the papers and they were all carefully thought out and well-run. Hire him/give him some cash!" Alas, I don't. The article even says, "We trust that reviewers and tenure committees will find appropriate ways to credit papers that include confirmation." The issue is that needs to come first for anything to happen.