Currently the market does. The reason to publish failure, currently, is to challenge accepted knowledge. This can be very good for one's career. This is also d

Currently the market does. The reason to publish failure, currently, is to challenge accepted knowledge. This can be very good for one's career. This is also done, to a lesser degree, for assumed knowledge. But I think you'd be able to control for random failure publishing if some rigor (i.e. why did you do this) was involved. I really don't know how incentives would be changed to allow for this though. Currently the market (i.e. citations and novelty) are the incentives. They are gamed though, but I think ongoing discussion about problems does mitigate that over time. As everything in academia, it does take long.