[return0]

That kind of gives out the wrong picture. Their contribution to the actual scientific process is small, and purely based on their preexisting reputation. It's because scientists in the first place submit their papers there that they hold that position. They do pick out good reviewers, for the same reason. Since they dont really have a say in peer review, their contribution ends in typesetting and printing (do people actually ever use those printed volumes?). And to be honest that's even changing, i spot many great articles (granted, most of them reviews or 'companion' papers) in many different journals.

For scientists, the value of the journals is the reviewer's comments, who spot errors, make useful suggestions etc. Correct me if i m wrong, but we've gotten excellent and extensive reviews from mid-range IF journals. Nature seems rather elitist in the bad sense (cliquish). Elsevier's top journals and Science are rather more strict. In general, the value of the journal for science is the rigorousness of reviews. There have been quite a few retractions from Nature and the misuse of statistics has been a consistent finding in studies by the Ioannides team.

As people (esp. young scientists) learn about these and about open access journals, Nature is definitely becoming less and less "THE journal", and the stranglehold you claim that it has on careers is really not that strong. Good science often speaks by itself.