That is fair, and I think you're right. That said, I think those cases are uncommon enough that it's still practically a guarantee that negative results will no

That is fair, and I think you're right. That said, I think those cases are uncommon enough that it's still practically a guarantee that negative results will not be racking up citations, and hence there still being very little incentive to publish those negative results. There are some exceptions to this, of course, but I think those would get published now anyway. In other words: I don't think limited publication venues is the reason few negative results get published. [1] But absolutely, it should be normalised. I also do think preregistration would be an effective tool in making that happen, if funders start requiring it - which is a challenge in its own right. [1] I think this summarises my views best, so I'm adding this to my original comment as well.