[etrautmann]

Having lived this reality, people respond to incentives. Your have to very fundamentally re-architect the incentives and career progression in academia to make publication of null results more common. The other side of this is reducing the time and hassle of publication. Right now I’m unlikely to battle for 1.5-3 years to get something through peer review for a result that nobody will find interesting.

[cortesoft]

I think this is exactly what the person you are replying to is saying; everyone knows it, but the people in charge of setting up the incentives still don’t seem interested in changing the incentives.

[a_bonobo]

Yes, this has been my experience in the Australian academic system as well: everything is broken and nobody with the power to change it, cares.

China seems to make some strides for their own academics, thinking loudly about moving away from glam publications as career incentives: https://www.ft.com/content/64a811f1-b132-4211-8a8c-2252cf964...

It's supposedly about the worry of leaking state secrets, but it will have positive outcomes apart from that.

[ransom1538]

More devastating, the null results we would be really valuable with machines that can think. (Not humans that don't give a shit).

[anonym29]

>people respond to incentives

Careful, you're starting to sound dangerously close to an Austrian economist!

[ ;) ]

[pfdietz]

"Show me the incentive and I'll show you the outcome." -- Charlie Munger