[mikk14]

True, but I'm not really arguing against what you're saying. It is true that, when you have a positive (or a negative!) result you should also report on the nulls you obtained on the way (most likely in the supplementary materials) as a compendium of the result, to put it into context.

What I'm arguing against is publishing a null result as a stand-alone publication. This creates the illusion of it being somehow a "result", which is not (in fact, we should stop calling them "results" altogether). With a null you haven't proven anything, and thus it is not a sufficient basis for a publication.

[owenshen24]

I see. Thanks for adding to the clarification. I think that the presentation of nulls as "results" can definitely be disingenuous. Ideally, science would have a better database to keep track of what people find, where we could add nulls in a way that doesn't highlight their "importance". As the person above says, reporting nulls is still useful to prevent p-hacking and publication bias.

(Of course, ideally I think we'd be better off focusing on reporting the data in a Bayesian approach, but that hasn't really gotten traction in the broader community.)