Something I've always wondered about- is there no value in failed results? I'd think people would benefit from knowing what approaches have failed. How is that information communicated?
I'd like to see more of those papers, especially from industry. But to write such kind of paper, you usually have to devote to a successful project all the way through, which usually takes a few years or more, and then you can write just one paper. Not very efficient way to produce publications, and you might have to write a paper in your spare time, for your employer wants you to write code instead....
Hence, The Journal of Negative Results in Biomedicine (yes, it is actually called that): http://www.jnrbm.com/
Peter Norvig has some great comments on the problem of NOT communicating failed results in his article on interpreting research.