This article highlights some (known) deficiencies, but doesn't seem to remotely support your assertion of “significant portion” being junk.

It also seems extremely likely that such things vary wildly by field, journal, etc.

Which is to say that throwing the whole thing out in preference to a completely unsourced and anonymous comment on HN seems, frankly, idiotic.

They do vary wildly yes.

Even within the same publication.

Nature has historically proven to be one of the top journal. Not taking that away from them. But being published by nature and peer reviewed does not mean such article cannot use a clickbait title and/or be non scientific.

So you concede that saying a “significant portion” was an outright lie with no basis in reality?

No I wouldn't concede that.

I took some precaution and made sure to not mention an estimate of what that portion represents. I think it fair to call it significant given it isn't breaking news.

Blame me for not providing references proving it is based on some interpretation of reality not only I, have.

Can you explain which of the article's claims you believe are unsubstantiated?

I was not referring to the article claims but to the argument that it was "peer reviewed"

As if that meant nature or the title couldn't be a clickbait, or the conclusion/claims dubious. They can be, that's all I called out.