>"It puts a drag of everyone if they have to wade through thousands of junk papers while doing research." If something that sounds interesting was published in

>"It puts a drag of everyone if they have to wade through thousands of junk papers while doing research." If something that sounds interesting was published in Nature/Science around 2000, I will usually just skip it. I already know the methods section will be crap and I will be unable to figure out what process generated the data (at least in the case of biomed). When I needed to dig through that stuff and try to make sense of what was going on in detail, that was an awful nightmare. And that was an editorial policy... now they at least let authors put the required info into supplements. I think that was the era of "peak peer review", the idea has been losing clout ever since (mostly due to the internet).