Publish your article with accompanying data and programs on sci-hub (github for science).
Tell your colleagues about it if you normally hold seminars before publishing papers, or post to mailing list. As interested people read your paper they will post comments, open issues, or star your repository. If it gets many stars Nature will include a link to it in their monthly list of important works, which would help even more people to find your repository.
I did not mean the existing scihub site, but simply something that would be github for science. It seemed to me amusing to reference scihub in the name, but unfortunately looks like it is confusing, and diverts attention from the content of my comment, which is that publishing paper should be similar to publishing a repository on github, and reviewing should be like reviewing pull requests.
Nature would not assign the same value to every star. Star from someone who works in a university and has large impact factor in the related field will have much higher value than a star from newly created account without any published work.
Stack overflow is a "popularity contest" and nothing has gone wrong with it so far, and science have always been popularity contest, i am just suggesting to give it better tools to measure the popularity.
Tell your colleagues about it if you normally hold seminars before publishing papers, or post to mailing list. As interested people read your paper they will post comments, open issues, or star your repository. If it gets many stars Nature will include a link to it in their monthly list of important works, which would help even more people to find your repository.