Conversely, it's also a way for the general public to see criticisms and laudations of research that might otherwise be accepted with blind faith. While Nature has its pick of comparatively incontrovertible research, sending a signal to the rest of the industry that peer reviews ought to be published seems like a useful step toward better, more replicable, more honest science.
> While Nature has its pick of comparatively incontrovertible research
Nature doesn't actually attempt to select for incontrovertible research, but rather the most groundbreaking/noteworthy research. Which is also why their retraction rate (and those of other "top" journals) is higher than average.
(Disclosure: I'm part of an initiative that explicitly distinguishes between exciting and robust research for this reason.)
