I reproduce below a comment I have left on this Nature editorial entitled “Go forth and replicate!“.
Nature Publishing Group encouragement of replications and discussions of their own published studies is a very welcome move. Seven years ago, I wrote a letter (accompanying a submission) to the Editor of Nature Materials. The last paragraph of that letter read: “The possibility of refuting existing data and theories is an important condition of progress of scientific knowledge. The high-impact publication of wrong results can have a real impact on research activities and funding priorities. There is no doubt that the series of papers revisited in this Report contribute to shape the current scientific landscape in this area of science and that their refutation will have a large impact.” 
The submission was “Stripy Nanoparticles Revisited” and it took three more years to publish it… in another journal; meanwhile Nature Materials continued to publish findings based on the original flawed paper . The ensuing, finally public (after three years in the secret of peer review), discussions on blogs, news commentary and follow up articles were certainly very informative on the absolute necessity of changing the ways we do science to ensure a more rapid discussion of research results .
One of the lessons I draw from this adventure is that the traditional publishing system is, at best ill suited (e.g. Small: three years delay), or at worst (e.g. Nature Materials) completely reluctant at considering replications or challenges to their published findings. Therefore, I am now using PrePrints (e.g. to publish a letter PNAS won’t share with their readers ), PubPeer and journals such as ScienceOpen where publication happens immediately and peer review follows .
So whilst I warmly welcome this editorial, it will need a little more to convince me that it is not a complete waste of time to use the traditional channels to open discussions of published results.
 The rest of letter can be found at https://raphazlab.wordpress.com/2012/12/17/letter-to-naturematerials/
 The article was eventually published in Small (DOI:10.1002/smll.201001465
); timeline: https://raphazlab.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/stripy-timeline/