Well, that’s progress, innit? After you read A and B you set out to improve things further and it worked. That’s why you publish it.
(But don’t get me started on systematic problems in academic publishing which stop people from publishing their helpful results about not succeeding and also exaggerating the importance of their findings)
Dammit, negative results are gold, pretty close to the essence of science and it’s just ‘not enough clickbait, fuck your career’
Yes, but… Let’s say papers A, B, and C are introducing methods. Often, each paper will choose to show the benchmarks in which their tool was the best. In reality, each tool might be better for a different task. If you understand the tools, and have gotten used to this kind of papers, you will probably get what each tool is good for. But the papers themselves are misleading, and people often just blindly use the “cutting edge” for everything.
But you need that sweet high impact factor for getting a job.
