I find it ironic that this is published in Nature. In may experience Nature journals are amongst the worst with respect to peer review. In my field they seem t

I find it ironic that this is published in Nature. In may experience Nature journals are amongst the worst with respect to peer review. In my field they seem to draw from a very limited set of reviewers (often senior academics who have not worked in the specific field in quite a while). We have been criticised with very outdated information. This is worse because editors are not experts, we had a reviewer contradict textbook established science and when we asked for an additional reviewer, they send it back to the same person. Even worse, their goal is not publishing good science, they want to sell journals. While they will never publicly admit it, I know that they take the into account the reputation of an author in their decision to send it out to reviewers (for those who don't know, in the high impact journals like science or nature, the biggest hurdle is typically getting the editors accept the paper and send the paper out to review).