There is an excellent comment on research misconduct at the brand new Pubmed Commons site by Dorothy Bishop:

…
Instead of valuing papers in top journals, we should be valuing research replicability. This would entail a massive change in our culture, but a start has already been made in my discipline of psychology (see http://www.nature.com). Continue reading Value replicability not journal impact →

Maybe it is easier to answer that question if you are a noble winner. The Guardian is reporting two days ago

Leading academic journals are distorting the scientific process and represent a “tyranny” that must be broken, according to a Nobel prize winner who has declared a boycott on the publications…
Randy Schekman, a US biologist who won the Nobel prize in physiology or medicine this year and receives his prize in Stockholm on Tuesday, said his lab would no longer send research papers to the top-tier journals, Nature, Cell and Science.

With the large distribution factor of the internet, I think there is nothing to loose by sending a paper to PLoS or some of the BMC journals. Quality will survive, yea, yea.

Just recently I cam across a long forgotten CIBA Foundation Symposium and they had some nice discussion printed there – conserved for eternity while I think that all these researchgate whatever forums are volatile, yea, yea.

Nature recently raised an extremely important point

Research metrics are ambiguous — a paper may be cited for positive or negative reasons. Funding agencies and universities focus on positive impact in evaluating research, which increasingly includes alternative metrics. We think that researchers can generate a more complete account of their impact by including seemingly negative indicators — such as confrontations with important people or legal action — as well as those that seem positive.

Yea, yea.