The problem is the following: If you seriously want to fix science you don't need one such journal. It would have to be the norm.
It's simply not plausible that the majority of empirical research leads to positive effects. Even if you publish a few negative results (or "failures") - that doesn't even begin to address the problem of publication bias seriously.
As long as the majority of scientific publications are not "failures" we should assume that the majority are false positives due to p-hacking or publication bias.
http://www.journals.elsevier.com/new-negatives-in-plant-scie...
On a slightly different note, I would love to see a section in journals devoted to publishing the results of duplicated experiments (performed by graduate students and interns, probably).
A bit like the Journal of Negative Results in Biomedicine, the Journal of Negative Results — Ecology and Evolutionary Biology and the psychology Journal of Articles in Support of the Null Hypothesis?
> several phd undergraduate friends
People doing PhDs who are simultaneously undergraduates?
http://www.journals.elsevier.com/new-negatives-in-plant-scie...
The idea was to look at unfruitful research as something useful for the community and give some credit to time and resources spent doing something that did not work (and should not repeated by others). I still wonder if that would create the wrong incentive though and if that could be feasible at all (who likes to talk about money and time wasted?)
EDIT: fixed wrong sentence