Another view of Nature and Science: the tabloids

As psychologist Sanjay Srivastava writes:

As long as a journal pursues a strategy of publishing “wow” studies, it will inevitably contain more unreplicable findings and unsupportable conclusions than equally rigorous but more ‘boring’ journals. Groundbreaking will always be higher-risk. And definitive will be the territory of journals that publish meta-analyses and reviews.

From Andrew Gelman.

I have to say, both journals do publish meta-analyses, reviews and crazy ideas like this one.  I cannot agree more with Gelman in saying " the problem is not with the tabloids publishing bad (or speculative) stuff, the problem is with with journalists who think that being published in a top journal is some sort of indication of correctness."