Couldn't agree more. We don't necessarily need journal articles to address negative results, but some kind of online forum or repository would be spectacular. Something where you can publish only abstracts of what didn't work along with contact info, so that other researchers in similar fields can query you if they are interested.

Actually, if I'm being fully honest, I wish all science worked like this. I'm down right sick of the journal model, and I look forward to the days it's abolished, which I suspect won't be too far in the future. The government (we the people) pays for the vast majority of the work; we should all have access to the data that are generated, and which scientists feel are relevant (obviously, we can't expect all data to be public, as most are more or less meaningless). Journals gouge public and university libraries and obscure taxpayer funded studies from taxpayers. All the while pretty much all scientists want everyone to be able to read their work. Given these pressures, and the proliferation of open access journals (like the venerable PLoS One; I know there are a lot of suspect ones, too), I think that journals are doomed to obsolescence. Good riddance.