Randy Schekman refers to these journals as “luxury” journals.
I think a more apt term is” science tabloids.”
Recently, TA has written about the problem of scientific publishers appropriating copyrights to themselves . especially on materials funded by our government. The problem, as I see it is not that there is anything wrong with Nature making a few $$$ or £££ but that the publisher, Elsevier, uses this work in ways that inhibit the freedom needed for science to move forward. In effect, they claim to be able to make a buck by canonizing certain work and then restricting access to that work to their subscribers. Martin Luther had somewhat similar experience with the indulgences of the Catholic Church of his day!
My point of view echoes the comments today by Randy Schekman, a US biologist who won the Nobel prize in physiology or medicine. In Sweden to accept his reward, Dr. Schekman said his lab would no longer send research papers to the top-tier journals, Nature, Cell and Science.
Dr. Shekman decried the fact that Nature, Cell, Science (and I would add the New England Journal) make editorial decisions not based n science but on the likelihood that the work will generate publicity. He refers to these journals as “luxury” journals. I think a more apt term is” science tabloids.” The problem is exacerbated, Schekman said, by editors who were not active scientists but professionals who favored studies that were likely to make a splash and by the emphasis universities place in recruiting faculty with good records oif publications in the tabloids.