[wflynny]

Having reviewed several papers for Scientific Reports in the past year, it was very similar to my experience reviewing for PLoS One. You are mandated not to factor in the significance of the work and only to critique the methodology and conclusions [1]. My experience reading articles there ranges from complete junk to papers that probably just missed the mark of getting into Nature proper.

Articles should make it more clear the distinction between Nature Publishing Group, Nature (journal), and Scientific Reports (open access journal). Confusion then propagates to the headlines of the articles when posted to content aggregators, take /r/science and it's related subreddits for example.

[1]: http://www.nature.com/srep/journal-policies/referees#criteri...

[jamessb]

It is particular confusing that articles in Scientific Reports have URLs of the form http://www.nature.com/articles/srep<id>

This means that on the HN (or Reddit) front-page they are listed simply as "(nature.com)", so it isn't immediately obvious which journal they're in.

I'm not sure whether this is what you meant by confusion propogating, so thought I would explicitly state this.

[brudgers]

Here, it is hard to see how the potential significance of the work would be in question if the methodology and conclusions are reasonably sound as publication implies based on your comment.