Good catch on the article. Maybe not peer reviewed, as I don’t know how Nature handles review on “comments”. But there are certainly editors involved, but that’

Good catch on the article. Maybe not peer reviewed, as I don’t know how Nature handles review on “comments”. But there are certainly editors involved, but that’s maybe no different from the editorial you posted. But calling it “blatant marketing materials” seems hyperbolic. Similar to implying that I advocate for cutting down vast areas of rainforest. And are you suggesting that the authors of that article bribed the editors? They didn’t even pay an open access fee (likely were not allowed to due to US DOE funding). Can you even point out lies or hype in the article?