Here’s an intriguing contrast.
In philosophy journals, reviewers tend to think that papers
with “positive” results are somehow superior to critical work with “negative”
results. On the whole, the profession seems to think
this right and proper.
In medical journals, reviewers tend to think that an experiment
that shows drug X has an effect is superior to experiment that shows that drug
X has no effect even when the same
methods are used. (Cf., e.g. this or this.) On the whole, the profession seems to think that this is literature bias.