Economics journal only publishes results that are no big deal
This is very relevant in biology. Countless Honours and MSc students every year try to achieve "results" and probably the majority of these may have as a first result a negative result, or if you will, the <i>empty</i> result.<p>And there is nothing wrong with that.<p>In fact, it is very useful. Any result that either proves nothing new or doesn't prove or disprove anything strengthens our confidence in the existing data knowledge base. This should even happen at school science fairs: If a student presents to me a study about how bicarbonate of soda does nothing to help plant x with growth, I would probably rate it highly as long as the content is consistent.<p>It sounds stupid to students, but "proving nothing" is <i>not nothing</i>. It is actually another grain of rice in the scale of how we approach topics that have not yet achieved clear results. And sometimes it's more than just a grain, it may be a confirmation of old results that if you had not redone the experiment yourself would remain an abstract or somewhat removed prospect.