The incentive to publish negative results is: "to not be labelled a charlatan".
The widespread non-publication of negative studies (and, tragically, their datasets) has, rightly, tarnished the validity of all published scientific results.
You can't blame normal people for doubting "scientific" results. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to deduce the worthlessness of published results, when it is disclosed that negative results have been withheld:
Just do studies until you get the results you want, then publish that one.
This has been de rigeur in medical science for some time.
The widespread non-publication of negative studies (and, tragically, their datasets) has, rightly, tarnished the validity of all published scientific results.
You can't blame normal people for doubting "scientific" results. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to deduce the worthlessness of published results, when it is disclosed that negative results have been withheld:
Just do studies until you get the results you want, then publish that one.
This has been de rigeur in medical science for some time.
For shame...