NoNukes writes:
Yes, but we're talking about 'Nature' here.
???
Nature was where the article about nonsense papers appeared, not one of the offending journals.
Nature does publish some non-peer reviewed articles, and has in the past been called on the carpet for publishing both fraudulent papers and nonsense papers.
I'm not expecting perfection, I don't think it's possible, and I don't see how a journal can do much to protect against fraud, but it does surprise me to learn that
Nature does publish some papers without peer review, and even more that they've published nonsense papers.
So looking this up, Wikipedia states that "Watson and Crick's 1953 paper on the structure of DNA" was not peer reviewed. Interestingly, peer review operates in the reverse direction too, rejecting legitimate papers as happened when "Enrico Fermi submitted his breakthrough paper on the weak interaction theory of beta decay" and "
Nature turned down the paper because it was considered too remote from reality."
I couldn't find information about nonsense papers published by
Nature.
--Percy