Here's a question for you and b_b, if a journal of negative results were published, what would be its format? Something like ClinicalTrials.gov, where all experiments are registered beforehand, and it is merely raw data that is collected? Or a more involved effort, similar to traditional journal publishing, where authors submit a full set of methods, results, and discussion? Do you publish ever negative gel? The last negative gel when a experiment failed to work after much poking and prodding? Edit: Herp, didn't read the entire thread, I would still be dissatisfied with an abstract-only feed. "My grad student tried this as their first project for a month and failed to produce results" doesn't carry quite the same weight as "Here are the negative results that show that X and Y do not interact and can thus be eliminated from the list of candidate disease pathways"
I think the most useful would probably lie somewhere between abstract and full blown article. The main ingredient would, of course, be the data. You gotta show me the data. Definitely less discussion and into, but detailed methods and results seem pretty important. I also think that contributors would need to 'package' a set of results that makes a story of some kind, even a short story.
