[skosuri]

1. Other than your time, why not preprint it?

2. As an aside, I can't tell you how many times I've tried to work on stuff, it ends up working, and then I find papers and people saying what we did would never work. Sometimes the ignorance is good.

[dguest]

What field is this? In the physics papers I've worked on we generally try to state all the assumptions we made when we rule something out, but we do sometimes miss things, and I suppose that in some fields the preparation might me messier.

[bnegreve]

> then I find papers and people saying what we did would never work.

Seriously? What kind of scientific paper makes such claims?

[skosuri]

To be fair, it's mostly people that do this because negative results publishing is rare. There have definitely been papers saying this though; plenty of shade thrown at basically every new method in its infancy with papers saying why they won't work (you can find plenty of academic papers dunking on human genome project and shotgun sequencing; next-gen sequencing; talens/crispr's, gene therapy, immunotherapy, ai, etc).