I love this post- I've shared similar skepticism when reading these "accidental methods" papers in the past. Thanks to Rachel above for being up-front about that "stressing the methodology was the only way to get a top journal to care..." But this is really kind of sad- think of the hundreds of extra person-hours that went into taking interesting experiments with null-results and massaging them into new form that catches the interest of editors. That seems like a dead-weight loss to me. I give kudos to journals like the Journal of Development Effectiveness, which is explicitly committed to publishing null results. But I wish there was an outlet which had both this commitment and generated significant citations.