Or at least, they should, according to WSJ's Melinda Beck.

There are more than 5,200 scientific journals, Beck says in Health Blog, so do we need more? Well, two more couldn't hurt.

"I think there should be two more scholarly periodicals: I’d call them Duh!, for findings that never seemed to be in doubt in the first place, and Huh?, for those whose usefulness remains obscure, at least to lay readers."

Examples of possible articles for Duh!'s first issue:
Toddlers become irritable when prevented from napping.
Cats make humans do what they want by purring.
TV crime dramas inaccurately portray violent crime in America.
People with high IQs make wise economic decisions.
Examples of possible articles for Huh?'s first issue:
Men are better than women at hammering in the dark.
Young orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees and bonobos laugh when tickled.
Neither alcohol (in him) nor makeup (on her) effect a man’s ability to guess a woman’s age.
The more abdominal hair, the greater the tendency to collect belly-button lint.
Part of this is the media's fault - they try to oversell and oversimplify scientific studies. But sometimes there really is meaning in these seemingly silly papers.
When reminded that the press release for his study had highlighted the hammering-in-the-dark aspect, Dr. Irschick noted that press releases often focus on something simple to attract media attention.

Indeed, in an effort to attract media coverage, academics—and their publicists— often underestimate the ability of the public to understand and appreciate what they are studying and why.

Huh? and Duh! would attempt to bridge this communication gap between academic researchers and the popular press. Phrases such as "novel empirical construct" will be replaced by "which nobody has done quite this way before." Words such as "whilst" will be banned.
Then again, what are you supposed to do with a study entitled, "The Nature of Naval Fluff?"