>"If I'm reading a paper in Nature I can assume that the editors and reviewers did first checks on content (BS can still get through, but it is rare)" You thin

>"If I'm reading a paper in Nature I can assume that the editors and reviewers did first checks on content (BS can still get through, but it is rare)" You think stuff published in nature is better? I found the opposite, that Nature publishes papers with "sexy" results and poorly described methodology. Nature is one of the worst journals, I cringe when info I want is in a Nature article (although with supplements it is getting better).