The first two examples in that article are weirdly inapt. Those are about spam journals and for-profit journals, which are really not at the center -- not on the periphery, even -- of current worries about replicability.
I think it's my post that's a little off: the article is really about faith in science, but I thought the replicability stuff was more interesting.
Science is hard
This is all about the social sciences, isn't it?
Physics, astronomy, and chemistry are still easy, aren't they?
Surely I've mentioned previously my proposal for The Journal of Negative Results? You tried something that was logical, methods and analysis were robust, but the data didn't show what you wanted, or didn't confirm a previously reported method/result.
Even less likely to get careful peer review, so sort of hanging out in the grayish literature?
Worth it just to back up AllTrials anyway.
A journal for which I review specifically says not to judge on significance but only scientific rigor including statistical treatment and checking for manipulation including gels etc. it gets careful reviews, I just beat the shit out of a paper last week and was backed up by the second reviewer.
4 is a wonderful idea for losing money, I suspect.
All journals lose money or exploit their audience/contributors.
4: Journal of Articles in Support of the Null Hypothesis
The All Results Journals.
The Negative Results Journals.
Or did you mean The Journal of Irreproducable Results?
methods and analysis were robust
The big problem is how can you be sure about this?