I'm not really surprised about the results related to Nature (and Science to a lesser degree). I have seen it multiple times that Nature editors (who are not ex

I'm not really surprised about the results related to Nature (and Science to a lesser degree). I have seen it multiple times that Nature editors (who are not experts in the field) have overruled reviewer recommendations to reject, because the results were exciting. The incentives for Nature are not to produce great science, but to sell journals and that requires them to give the impression of being on the forefront of "scientific discovery". I've in fact been told by an editor "our job is to make money, not great science)". The irony is that their incentives also make them very risk averse, so they will not publish results which don't have a buzz around them. I know of several papers which created new "fields" which were rejected by the editors. The incentive also results in highly cited authors having an easier time to get published in Nature. I should say that this is typically much better in the journals run by expert editors, published by the technical societies like e.g. IEEE.