Preregistration, requirement to publish negative or null results, and full data is, arguably, the three legs of modern science. If we collectively don't enforce this, nobody is doing science, they're just fucking around and writing it down.
I like rules like these. One context where preregistration, null results, and full data are all required are clinical trials overseen by the FDA. It’s no surprise that those studies carry a lot of weight.
I think what's being pointed out is that "researchers" could pump out hundreds of easy to test negatives every day if a negative result was just as incentivised.
I do agree though, negatives are just as important when the intent is to prove/disprove a meaningful hypothosis.
Why would someone want to game a negative result? Nobody ever becomes famous for saying my approach doesn't work. (As long as science is open, to make sure there is actually good work done by researchers before reaching this neg result.)
