I find it funny that Nature is writing this as their journal require such short papers (usually three pages) that you basically can’t explain anything in real depth. Every AI paper that ends up in Nature, I have to go read something else to get it (usually a paper by the same author elsewhere).
I find your comment really interesting because I see things the opposite: the shorter the paper the better, in my view. This is grounded on the general principle that in 99% of cases, any particular paper will only have one really important key new insight (if even that much). I suppose I'm biased because I primarily read theory papers, maybe it's a different story when it comes to experimental stuff.
Exactly; I come from robotics which is highly experimental and it is very easy to design a robotics experiment where there will be no way to fit a description of the experiments plus the theory in three pages.
Nature lets you put as many details as you like into supplementary material.
That said, the one nature paper I've properly studied was to me so obviously making unwarranted claims that I'd never have let it through review. (And I'm usually a very supportive reviewer! ) One of the authors admitted as much in another paper a year later. But hey, it had all the wow factor that nature selects for.
