Suggesting that people would stop reading Nature if they also included replication studies send like an incredible leap.
"It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so."
Knowing that something I thought was true was actually false would have saved me years in several situations.
What's even your point here? Hopefully we are at least in agreement that Nature is seen as prestigious and worth looking through precisely because of the sort of content that they publish. Diluting that would dilute their very nature. (Bad pun very much intended sorry I just couldn't resist.)
No. I'm explicitly stating that they are few and far between, but perhaps (not certainly, but conceivably) they shouldn't be.
"What's even your point here?"
My point is that focusing on positive findings and neglecting negative findings perverts the mechanism that makes science work. Science isn't about proving things correct, it's about rooting out errors.
Regardless, I don't think that's at odds with my original assertion that becoming a venue for publishing negative results would undermine the "point" of Nature.
The missing link isn't a venue in which to publish. It's funding to do the work in the first place. Also funding to spend the time writing it up when you find that you've inadvertently been tricked into doing the work while trying to get something that builds on it to work.
Oh there have been times would have loved to be able to apply for one of those!