So, yes there needs to be a way to share what you have done that did not work. But to force me to write it up in a journal format to be critiqued by reviewers for me anyways is not the answer. I already have enough problems getting papers published and dealing with "reviewer #3". To have it citable, I don't really see the reason. I am not going to cite a bunch of null data and "stuff that did not work" on a grant proposal. They are only concerned with your productivity and impact. I may seem a bit harsh but there has to be an easier way to get "mistakes" out in the wild.

Another issue is "the experiment didn't work because they didn't worked or the researcher didn't design the right experiment"?

Science is turning into a "too good to be truth" issue now

Traditionally there has been no "Journal of Negative Results". With technology now wide spread and available to many there should be a repository for "experiments that just didn't work". The other side to that is someone poaching your experiments because they can determine where you are going with a certain set of failed experiments. Some parts of the scientific world are very cut-throat, with a win at all costs to secure the next round of funding.