Its reputation among people like Lakens, and others complaining about the poor state of statistics and rigor in modern science, is that it features overinterpreted overhyped results from small underpowered experiments, and when errors are pointed out it's usually not too interested in correcting them. The editors are more interested in "important" results than methodologically rigorous ones.

It's similar to how Andrew Gelman always sarcastically refers to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences as the Prestigious Proceedings, because that's invariably the adjective used in news reports, yet many of the articles are of the "female-named hurricanes cause more damage" type.

It has a reputation of being very splashy. If you have really good work it gets put there, is bright, is well-regarded. However, of the bench-scientists (not the professors) who have published in their journals, it is clear that their style of compressing a large amount of ground-braking work into a page or two of text is really not in the science's best interest. They have a journal specifically called 'Nature Methods', where new protocols and methods go. Most of the time it is actually impossible to cram the actual method being used into their allotted space. So they either get dumped into the (not-reviewed) supplement, or are not included at all. A paper from Nature usually lacks required data/detail that other journals provide - and this is especially problematic when coupled with being 'cutting-edge' science.

So you get this effect of very hot research that the professors can gloat over, relatively easy to read, well-publicized, but actually are lacking in much scientific data or detail when it comes to the actual text. In the field I work in I need access to DNA and protein sequences that should all be freely available. When I find a Nature paper the sequence is invariably missing, or presented in the supplement as a PNG screenshot of a microsoft word file. Again, it's not a detail a professor or casual reader would care about - but it's a detail that's absolutely critical to the science and for replication.

Most journals are neither so condensed to the exclusion of data/protocols, nor so well-read as to actually create issues when it comes to replicating, correcting, or retracting them.

"Nature" comes in for a lot of criticism because they have a news division that publicizes results widely, yet does very little when those results are retracted...and they are corrected or retracted increasingly frequently: http://retractionwatch.com/category/by-journal/nature-retrac...

Depends on who you ask probably, but in the scientific world it's generally not regarded as low quality, rather the opposite. Also it's impact factor suggests that. Though the way that is calculated is also under debate by some, I'd say it still gives an indication of quality in general.

No. For biology at least it is the one to aim for.