The field of study has nothing to do with it. If a journal publishes a result, they are ethically obligated to publish further work that refutes that result.
Rather than publish the entire paper, they could publish the single sentence:
> Issue 55, Page 8, the paper we published has been replicated with more data, and results do not support the original research conclusions. See paper entitled "Foo" published in "other journal" for details.
Too general. Few in science would accept this. The claim here is the weaker one that journals are ethically obliged to accept failed replication studies - and even that is non-obvious to me. (Should Science also be obliged to accept _successful_ replications? No? So it should accept papers on the basis solely of the results? Hello, publication bias.)
> If a journal publishes a result, they are ethically obligated to publish further work that refutes that result.
This isn't a violation of scientific ethics and I think its a silly argument to make. Journals aren't the parents of research results they publish and somehow responsible for all counter arguments or competing data points.