With the launch of eNeuro, SfN aims to alter some of the troubling patterns in publication.
I still don’t see why the society needs a new journal to alter those patterns, when it could just change the editorial policies of the journal it already has.
If you think publishing negative results is important, if you think publishing replications is important, change the editorial policies, priorities, and format of Journal of Neuroscience. Cordoning these results into eNeuro sends a clear signal that replications and negative results are second rate science.
Additional, 6 May 2015: Ivan Oransky notes that the Journal of Neuroscience has some “troubling patterns in publication,” like not explaining editorial decisions on retractions and publication bans.