I’m asking on a legitimate basis. I am not involved in the science world and only know about Nature as a publication from high school and college. The way Nature was described to gave me the sense that you weren’t going to have a paper published unless you had some surprising results, and that didn’t include the null hypothesis.
If that’s not the case for this publication then I would appreciate if someone showed me how they changed in the past decade
They publish surprising and high-profile results, yes.
However, there's also an informal crazy claims filter. If your paper is so surprising they think it might be made up or wrong, they might ask for extensive revisions prior to publication.
So they won't publish my paper saying the moon is made of cheese no matter how surprising such a finding might be.
