Where the publishing of negative results is needed (and generally wanted) is in the paper of the experiments that did work. The problem is that paper is missing

Where the publishing of negative results is needed (and generally wanted) is in the paper of the experiments that did work. The problem is that paper is missing all the failures along the way. It is totally fine if this is all thrown in the appendix but the problem becomes that we have to write things quickly and including negative results only increases the likelihood of your work getting rejected because reviewers see their role as antagonistically, to find errors. The problem really comes down to not letting people admit mistakes. Good work can be done even while many mistakes exist. But a work is better when the mistakes are easier to find. Short term vs long term reward. Because in the long term someone needs to replicate your experiments, even in some minor way just to show that their thing is better than yours. Having information about what didn't work is helpful for learning new paths that will work. I don't think many scientists really want to publish papers like "We did X, X had no results", but rather "We did X! X is awesome! But along the way we tried Y, Z, ... which were not so successful. We think Y because... we have no fucking clue about Z." You're still pushing the exciting stuff. You're just giving it more context.