I can agree with that. And I’m sure it’s because letters on the forefront are published quickly without time to consider all the possible problems.

Anecdotal only, sorry. I’m sure it varies by field, and it’s more about letters than longer papers. There are probably fields where Nature is excellent, but I know that there is at least one where the odds of a letter to Nature being accurate a few years later is about 50%.

And, for that reason, about half the papers (depending on the field) published in Nature are wrong.