From what I've seen, I wouldn't say CS is immune to this at all. CS seems to only be accepting papers that illustrate some big win. In my short PhD career, I'v

From what I've seen, I wouldn't say CS is immune to this at all. CS seems to only be accepting papers that illustrate some big win. In my short PhD career, I've an article in the drawer where the result was inconclusive. This result, in and of itself, was fairly valuable. It spoke much about all the ways things went wrong. However, wrong was not acceptable for publication, it had to be right. Much hand-wringing was done to identify the bits that could be pulled out from it, polished, and then submitted (I was not especially pleased about this). The paper was, rightly, rejected, but all the valuable findings are still in my drawer. The pressure to produce Good findings rather than Bad findings does not meet my expectation of scientific pursuit. I took great joy in seeing a history of science exhibition recently, and reading the notebooks of people like Newton and Darwin, who they themselves spend a lot of time writing out all the things that went wrong, all the concerns they have about their "results", and general humbleness. It speaks volumes that the greatest scientific minds that have ever lived have put more caveats and concerns in their published work than 98% of what is published today does. To get published, it seems you have to be 110% sure that your work is 120% amazing. I don't think this is a good state of affairs.