I'd go further, and say that most scientific papers are profoundly unscientific: without the data and analysis process they base their claims on, most papers are no different than just saying "believe me, I'm a scientist".

There are some honorable exceptions, of papers which publish accompanying data and the tools they used to process it, but the vast majority don't.

The fact that negative results don't get published at all, is just disrespecting the word "science". One of its basic premises is that of falsability, so proving a theory wrong, is just as valuable as proving a different one right.