[realradicalwash]

this is nice, and a clear step forward. but more is needed to fix a semi-broken system. because publication bias is one thing, but there is also something like a _reception bias_.

there are already null result journals and workshops. it is increasingly possible to publish negative results / unsurprising results.

still, imv those results are less likely get cited. because negative results are often messy that can be hard to understand. and people don't want to pick up a paper and then not understand. so it's no surprise that positive results, certainly the way they are framed, often neatly come together. the 'stories' they tell you are often easy to grasp mono-causal stories. it's almost like you read them and you feel good about yourself, because you feel like you suddenly understand a difficult problem.

and then, which paper will you cite in your own work? the paper you understood, that has that catchy title? or the one that you struggled through, the one that painted a picture of a far more complex, messy reality?

this kind of reception bias will be very hard to fix. it takes more critical editors, reviewers, and readers to fix this.