If you want to see the negative results, contact the researcher. There is no room, publishing mechanism, or benefit to most negative results. If the negative re

If you want to see the negative results, contact the researcher. There is no room, publishing mechanism, or benefit to most negative results. If the negative results are novel or reveal a new method, they will get published. Science doesn't care that someone tried hard. Science isn't about applauding effort but is about results. Negative results with significance may, very seldom, be worthy of publishing. Publishing the vast majority of negative results would be a waste of time, funding, and resources. Maybe you're unaware of the many failed experiments across the domains, but they are plentiful. If you want to read them, the data is still collected - it's just not published. There's no good reason for it to be published in all but the rarest of cases. Just email the researcher, it will be in their journal. If they published, it's in the stack of notes and was trimmed out because it takes space, time, and money while having negligible value. It's great that someone put a lot of effort in, science does not care. Frankly, we are publishing too much junk as it is. Adding to the list of junk isn't going to solve any problems, it's just going to create problems. The solution is to increase the quality if what is being published, not to increase the noise to appease some emotions. Again, there is no participation trophy - nor should there be.