> I'm just saying that people should refute the claims in
  > the paper instead of attacking the delivery method.

At the risk of merely echoing what's been said countless times: (perceived) journal quality is simply a reliable heuristic for judging paper quality. Sure, some stuff published in Nature is crap, and some third-tier journals publish important research every now and then.

But in 90% of all cases, the paper-journal quality correlation works rather well.