There's an interesting tension in academia between the need to publish regularly, the fact that deep research often needs longer work periods before achieving i

There's an interesting tension in academia between the need to publish regularly, the fact that deep research often needs longer work periods before achieving impactful results, and the fact that sometimes quantity of output produces better net results. I wonder if this could be alleviated by incentivizing the publishing of papers on work with no statistically significant results, as has been discussed here and elsewhere. That might increase quantity of output, while building a useful database of what not to spend time on.