> I had the idea of a journal for research failures/dead-ends. The problem is the following: If you seriously want to fix science you don't need one such journ

> I had the idea of a journal for research failures/dead-ends. The problem is the following: If you seriously want to fix science you don't need one such journal. It would have to be the norm. It's simply not plausible that the majority of empirical research leads to positive effects. Even if you publish a few negative results (or "failures") - that doesn't even begin to address the problem of publication bias seriously. As long as the majority of scientific publications are not "failures" we should assume that the majority are false positives due to p-hacking or publication bias.