Comment by constantcrying 12 hours ago
>but a fix is to propose research to a journal before conducting it and being committed to publication regardless of outcome.
Does not fix the underlying issue. Having a "this does not work" paper on your resume will do little for your career. So the incentives to make data fit a positive hypothesis are still there.
The paper is irrelevant and will never get cited. There is essentially zero benefit to your career as it is nothing more than a single bullet point on your resume.
Discovering something that works is significant, discovering something that does not work is irrelevant.
Can you name a single scientist, e.g. from your field, who is known for showing that something does not work?
I think I am better informed than most of the population. How many research papers do you read per month?
I read papers quite regularly as part of a function of my job.
That is categorically not true. Showing why something does not work (or is not advantageous over other methods) demonstrates you know how to properly conduct research which is good for ones resume.