In the linked blog entry, Neuroskeptic notes that high impact journals often have fewer statistical details than other journals. The research reported in these journals is often heavily amended, if not outright contradicted, by later research. I don't think this is nefarious, though, nor is it worthless. The kind of work reported in Science and Nature, for instance, generates interest and, therefore, more scrutiny (funding, studies, theses, etc.).
But as with all other research, if statistical details are included it might direct subsequent research in these topics a bit better.