The question I want to ask was inspired by this Meta post. Specifically, it was asking if "conjecture questions" should require some degree of support before they can be asked. One thing that came up was the Skeptics SE requirement that questions like this address "notable claims":
One area that is tricky for new users who ask questions, is that we aren't that interested in spending effort researching answers to ideas that no-one actually believes. We want to confirm or disprove real claims that many people think are true. Therefore, we ask that questions address notable claims.
I want to ask if this standard also applies to psychology research. I know that there's been more of a push lately to publish research that supported (or failed to reject) the null hypothesis (and that there are even journals who focus entirely on the topic): do journals typically have some kind of "notability requirement" for such articles like what was stated above? Are studies that disprove a non-notable claim worth publishing?
Is this question too subjective, poorly worded but salvageable, or acceptable for the main site? How can I word this in a way that won't be closed and/or downvoted into oblivion?