[epolanski]

Sadly the publication metric is sick and made the overwhelming majority of published scientific papers, I am sadly a co-author of a paper that I know for a fact can't be reproduced because the underlying data has been stressed enough to show what the main writer wanted to show.

And it's not even the authors fault the system is like that. Research isn't just about saying "hey we found this works", but also about "we wasted 3 years, it doesn't work sadly". Yet, the second option does not lead to the same impact, because if something doesn't work it's not going to be reproduced and thus quoted.

[memen]

Proof that it does not work is still an interesting result! However, I think you meant to say that if you failed to show that it works, it often also means you cannot proof that it doesn't work. And then you indeed have nothing worth publishing.

[epolanski]

Say you're researching some material to have some behaviour. It doesn't have it.

You're not gonna be published on high impact journals with data that doesn't move the field, even though as you point out the information is as valuable.

[DoctorOetker]

but a preventing the field from sliding in the gutter could be rewarded in principle.

[DoctorOetker]

it could be quoted by say medical insurance companies, or by patent offices, but that would mean a wider quotation scope.

a less extreme widening of scope would be just the research funds that apply or deny grants for research: suppose a flurry of papers investigates the superconductive behavior of a piece of meteorite, and you're the one to kill the buzz with your negative result, then future grant denials could cite your boring negative result.