Negative results are important to science in general, but as you can no doubt tell, they are less likely to be found in published academic literature in most cases. That is an enormous shame, as it leads to lots of wasted time in essentially re-inventing the wheel. Whether or not a journal/conference will be willing to accept it is going to largely be determined by the journal, its editors, or more importantly, the reviewers.
Ultimately, presenting a negative result is all in how you frame it. What you do not want to do is just say the result was not significant. You want to sell why the elimination of that as a probable or plausible explanation of a phenomenon is worth everyone knowing. I fall on the side of it being definitely worth knowing because it prevents other researchers from having to go back through the work that you did for no apparent reason.
If you have a particular outlet in mind, I would definitely discuss it with the editor. They may have some information for you that is specific to their desires (and that can ultimately help you publish your work).
Negative experimental results checking theoretical data were presented many times. You can easily find corresponding papers in Internet.
How negative results can be presented in a research paper ?
Negative results still can be presented in a research paper but we need to justify / discuss / explain why the negative results occur based on the research's empirical evidence? What causes them to happen? Is there any further literature reviewed supporting your claim(s)? What are the lesson(s) learned? What are the research limitation(s)? What are the knowledge contribution based on your research findings? How we should do it differently next time? What are the future research recommendations? What are the research conclusion? etc.
It can be viewed through discussion and comparison with other results as (if any) to find a useful comparison.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Methodology
- Research Methodology
- Research Papers