This is almost common sense but if you can characterize it by value - excellent! The simple statement is that things that are found in data are more likely to be published than things that are not found.
For example, if a scientific paper finds (cosmology hit again) non-gaussianity in the CMB it is more likely to be published than anything that doesn’t find non-gaussianity (if judging by non-gaussianity alone). A rule of thumb is generally that if a (new) effect is found to ~95% (2σ) confidence, don’t believe it: there’s a one in twenty chance of it being wrong. To prove something new you need a certainty of around 5σ (something like 99.99999980%). If you need a real life corollary, and you happen to be/know a D&D enthusiast, it’s effectively the difference between rolling a 20 on a fair d20 (20-sided) die versus dying of radiation poisoning from eating a single banana.