I think the negative result is consider normal result and give good evidence to go in the correct way to solve any problem in same subject area because its limited the ways and probability that found in
Even though many researchers are thinking that negative results are non-valuable for publication; However, such findings might be more truthful and attractive than positive results. On the other hand, it might provide a basis to prevent a repetition of similar work. Therefore, negative results are as good as positive.
It depends on ethics of researcher and the kind of problem. The negative results consider a scientific result but should be written in good way in the discussion.
Most of the time, we are interested in what works, the many things that don't work are of little consequence. However, there are exceptions to that: if a commonly accepted theory or method is drawn into question by a negative result, then this result can be important. I was in that situation once (doi:10.1101/567180), and it was not possible to publish the result in the classical way. Fortunately, with electronic archives it is now possible to make such results available to other researchers.
A test result that shows the substance or condition the test is supposed to find is not present at all or is present, but in normal amounts. In genetics, a negative test result usually means that a person does not have a mutation (change) in the gene, chromosome, or protein that is being tested.
In my opinon there is no such thing as a negative result, only an hypothesis which is disproved or not. Proving that an hypothsis is false is often more fruitfull than confirming a well-known trend. Even if it may be more difficult to plublish.
Many researchers fear if they get results that are different than expected and do not meet their pre-sentiment. In my opinion, they provoke the emergence of new concepts other than traditional thinking and lead to valuable discoveries. Different from what we already know makes us think more analytically.
Negative results are very valuable because they make us doubt the correctness of the thesis we defend. Often, they suggest new approaches to analysis and different ways of explaining phenomena.
I have a real case that in one experiment I got different data than expected. After a long thought, I realized that they were directing me to something I had never encountered before. I realized that sometimes it's more interesting to go beyond established patterns.
It should not be the question of a negative result in research, It should be the question of the null hypothesis/ alternate hypothesis, accepted /rejected. Any result you could get, nothing to worry about.