Horseshit. This might be true for AI research (and even there that's an awfully broad brush you're using, mate), but it's certainly not true for other areas of computer science.
Is there even more stuff which really shouldn't be published, and has experiments which are abused to show off how great new technique A is, while hiding that was attempt 72 at making an experiment that showed A was great? Also of course.
As a society, we have far too much trust in science, however any time this argument is brought up, we focus on conspiracy theorists who struggle with 100+ years old theories as if the visage of the public trust in science will change their mind, ignoring that any member of the public, who accidentally discovers the Jenga tower the science is built on (but hidden) will become much more likely to believe those charlatans in the future.
As a society, there is laughably little support for science, instead the majority of policy and business decisions are based on fairy tales and snake oil. We need more trust in science.
So you don't know anyone, but I can counter with those three anecdotes.
3>1
Qed I am right, statistically.