Should I still submit if my final results are not good? Firstly, I am aware of this question, but: 1) there is no accepted answer there and 2) my situation is not as good as the OP's in that question.
Being new to research, I have always thought it is about the new knowledge you create. Many times, you follow a theory to find out that it doesn't work. I had thought it is OK to publish such findings and to provide a constructive criticism thereof, but recently I got a second rejection which made me revisit myself.
From your practical experience, is it worthy submitting in such cases? if not, how is this situation best dealt with provided that much time and effort are usually invested therein?
I assume it makes sense to submit in principle but I am wondering whether the academic reality agrees with such an assumption.
There is a big problem called publication bias: only studies that &quot;find something&quot; get published. In part this bias is due to journals being less likely to accept papers with negative findings. In part this is due to researchers not even submitting the papers. So, the fact that you submitted those papers is an important and positive step you have taken to (try to) reduce publication bias. However, it is an uphill battle.