In academic papers, is it really a bad thing to not report the relatively not good results?
Research is a search for truth, not for happy talk. If you have evidence of some behavior then you should be honest and report it just as it is. Don't try to dress it up.
Giving only the &quot;best&quot; results will sometimes mislead people and will cause them, perhaps, to waste time and effort.
You are currently the best source to give an honest and complete review of the meaning of your results. I strongly suggest you do that. At some level, not doing that is malfeasance.
I suggest that the reviewers themselves probably think like I do and won't reject a paper that is honest and complete, other things being equal. They aren't looking for happy talk either.
But you may also have an opportunity to investigate why you get different outcomes. Is it something about your model, or something special about the data? Inquiring minds want to know.