There has been substantial recent lamentation concerning the nature of scientific publishing, and the perceived requirement that experimental results "tell a story" in order to be published in the peer-reviewed literature. For example, The Bean Mom recently stated the following:
The data that's confusing, that doesn't fit a paper's hypothesis, usually isn't published. No suprise--why would any author include data that contradicts or confuses the story she/he is trying to tell? Negative results usually also aren't published. That transgeneic mouse with no phenotype? Will probably languish unknown. But if the experiements were rigorous and carefully controlled, then even puzzling and negative data is valid data. And when that data is not communicated, it can be to the detriment of the whole scientific community, as researchers waste time and money heading down blind ends . . .
Well, Comrade PhysioProf is here to tell you that there is now an excellent peer-reviewed home for publishing exactly these kinds of experimental results: PLoS ONE. Here are PLoS ONE's stated criteria for publication:
To be accepted for publication in PLoS ONE, research articles must satisfy the following criteria:
1. The study presents the results of primary scientific research.
2. Results reported have not been published elsewhere.
3. Experiments, statistics, and other analyses are performed to a high technical standard and are described in sufficient detail.
4. Conclusions are presented in an appropriate fashion and are supported by the data.
5. The article is presented in an intelligible fashion and is written in standard English.
6. The research meets all applicable standards for the ethics of experimentation and research integrity.
7. The article adheres to appropriate reporting guidelines (e.g. CONSORT, MIAME, STROBE, EQUATOR) and community standards for data availability.
There is nothing in there about "broad interest to a diverse audience" or "importance to the field" or whatthefuckever. If the experiments are solid, you're good to go!
UPDATE: A comment by Bean-Mom reminds me to point out that PLoS ONE is indexed by Pubmed, and is open access.