Disagree, as we also publish “failed” research, where authors reflect on their experiment, such that others may learn from it, and that the others may still gain something useful academically from this (citations, a publication).

One of our goal is to change the perception of and culture around failure in academia. Research/science is not just a steady upward trend of progress, it comes with a lot of trial and error. Academics’s success and job prospects however depend mostly on them publishing in high impact journals, which in turn only publish “interesting” aka positive results, which creates this very toxic publish-or-perish culture. Having an experiment fail is a natural part of doing science, but academic institutions punish you for not producing positive results. By providing a place to publish these failed experiments, at least it provides some relief for this problem. This is not real change however, that needs to happen at a much higher level, but that is one we do are not able to impact. Ideally our journal will not be necessary in the future, as we detail in our opening editorial: https://doi.org/10.36850/ed1

I see. I guess I see part of the problem you're trying to solve as reflected in the language of "failed" and "error" as opposed to framing say non-replication of a prior false positive as a "correction" or "additional evidence" (against a prior false positive). It may not matter to everyone but some funders might wince as research they've funded as being "failure" or "error." Just something to consider.