As I said in another comment, I think it'd be much easier to convince Nature to create a new article type, Replication Study.

Nature, as well as other top journals, do not publish results that report already published findings. Replication Studies would be the exception. These would provide independent validation of a recent prominent article.

People would think twice before misrepresenting findings in top journals, and good ideas would spread out more quickly.

There isn't enough incentive currently to publish reproductions, starting a new journal using the same general publishing model isn't going to change that. But with money to burn you could add some incentive, or you could at least do things to improve publication quality like actually paying for good peer reviewers.