While I'm all in all very happy with the current ethical standards, it's worth to point out that in the past science was significantly advanced by transgressing the ethical standards of the time (i.e. [1]) and it's easy to imagine botched ethics that are diametrical to scientific principles.
I stand firm that not following some ethical standard does not invalidate scientific results and consequently that OPs "dark journals" are very well possible (obviously not desirable).
> it's worth to point out that in the past science was significantly advanced by transgressing the ethical standards of the time
This misses the point: Gallileo's persecution was (and is) morally impermissible, even if the powers at the time claimed otherwise. "Transgressing the ethical standards of the time" isn't at all contentious, because the ethical standards were clearly wrong.
By contrast, there's no clear sense in which our current ethical standards (in the domain of scientific research) are actually wrong -- I might (and happen to) disagree with their metaethical foundations, but their actual practice is perfectly satisfactory: harm reduction, respect for fundamental rights, consideration against exploitative forces, &c.
It's perfectly consistent (and correct) to say that following some misguided ethical standard will not invalidate scientific findings. What invalidates those findings is failing to obey our current, very good ethical standards.
While I'm all in all very happy with the current ethical standards, it's worth to point out that in the past science was significantly advanced by transgressing the ethical standards of the time (i.e. [1]) and it's easy to imagine botched ethics that are diametrical to scientific principles.
I stand firm that not following some ethical standard does not invalidate scientific results and consequently that OPs "dark journals" are very well possible (obviously not desirable).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei