I really enjoy technical reports and gray literature.
For instance, consider Albany et al.
They seem to be quite consistently good and reasonable; and a lot of important negative reports are in there which otherwise soft-money researchers seem to be too chicken to publish (see Brandon on Tsen laser).
Some ideas:
-
an institution that is likely to publish gray literature that I will read requires workers to have certain expertise, rather than an exlusive filter on the outputs (e.g. journal) - that seems like it could be a in general though
-
funding slightly less dependent on conclusion, no hesitation for negative results
-
flexible format, author can write as they see fit
-
Different kind of peer-review. Rather than journal-shopping, usually facilities will have a “neighborly” review