[avian]

> To academicians, the journals are more like "interesting lines of research" rather than "settled results".

That may be true around the water cooler. Try publishing any result that goes against a peer-reviewed paper (and, as an author, not be an affilieated with a well-known US university) and you quickly realize that published results are pretty much settled in stone.

I'm not talking about ground-breaking stuff. Something on the level of "after lots of careful work in our group we were unable to replicate the results published in the relatively well-cited paper in a very niche topic" is largely unpublishable.

[lapcat]

It appears that you're complaining about what gets accepted and what gets rejected for publication to academic journals, which can be a legitimate complaint. The journals are inevitably subject to a form of academic "trendiness" (for lack of a better word).

But that issue is not quite the same as how academics treat journal articles in general. The journals are not a full or fully accurate representation of academia or science as a whole.

[gus_massa]

It's easier to publish a result that contradicts a previous result but is different, like we measures X=20 but the previous paper said that X=10.

Publishing a negative result is very difficult. I guess you need a long history of good publications to convince the journal you are not making a silly mistake.