It may surprise you to learn this but Nature (the magazine, not the bitch) is not a fan of yours.  Or ours.  Or anyone not part of their multi-billion dollar publishing conglomerate.

They don't think much of scientists, who are to feel privileged for submitting their work for free and handing over copyright to the private sector for all eternity (unless you want to pay an extra 5 grand or so) and they don't think much of bloggers, although they have tried to bolster Nature Networks into the big leagues, provided their writers don't actually contribute anything interesting - and if you have posted something there only to have a Nature editor immediately post a comment on whatever you wrote redirecting people to some Nature article piece or paid blog, you know it is a cynical attempt at social media.

And they don't even think much of science journalists, who would seem to be the lifeblood of a magazine publishing science, especially under their Scientific American consumer media brand but also Nature itself.

Brian Deer, a science journalist recently named the specialist journalist of the year in the British Press Awards, was about to write a piece for Nature on 1960s-era press release puffpiece journalism when he came across some things he didn't like - no, it wasn't their objection to "scientists are no more trustworthy than restaurant managers – whose kitchens are randomly inspected to protect the public" though Nature certainly did not like that, since they have to pretend their peer review process is flawless and they love scientists lest scientists wonder why they are making Macmillan Publishers Limited and its German parent, Verlagsgruppe Georg von Holtzbrinck GmbH, rich for free.

What he didn't like was the contract they sent him.    It had juicy bits like "You agree to indemnify NPG for any losses, damages, costs and expenses ..." which means if he writes something and someone does not like it, he is paying the attorney fees.    Most publications have editors to keep writers between the libel lines and then lawyers to defend that whole First Amendment thing (I know, I know, no Constitution in Britain) so, to an investigative journalist, whose very existence revolves around pulling back the curtain on the confidential and letting the public into the hidden secrets, it has to have made him a little crazy reading a 5-page contract telling him all the things he could not do.

So he did what any investigative journalist would do when presented with an onerous agreement by a group claiming to be about science first - he wrote an article about their contract.   Since he didn't sign it, he isn't bound by it, though I imagine Nature's lawyers are a lot more active going after writers than they are defending them.