In my experience quality vs prestige is a U-curve.
At one extreme you have the really crappy journals that publish nonsense, at the other the really "prestigious" journals that are more like tabloids reporting exciting sounding conclusions with totally inadequate methods sections.
In the middle are the topic-specific journals that you need to read to guess what they did to get the "exciting" results.
"Science" in the late 1990s and early 2000s is the absolute worst example of this.
At one extreme you have the really crappy journals that publish nonsense, at the other the really "prestigious" journals that are more like tabloids reporting exciting sounding conclusions with totally inadequate methods sections.
In the middle are the topic-specific journals that you need to read to guess what they did to get the "exciting" results.
"Science" in the late 1990s and early 2000s is the absolute worst example of this.