Here are two parodies of the same imaginary story written up as abstracts for Cell/Science/Nature vs. A Specialty Journal. Which one would you send out for review?
Specialty Journal Version.
Crystal structure of gobbledegook bound to schmutz
Authors: Grad Student, Undergrad, PI.
The crystal structure of gobbledegook bound to schmutz in complex with peanut butter identifies a distinct mode of jabberwockying junk. Gobbledegook binds to schmutz via the conserved ACDC domain.
Molecular mechanism of junk recruitment by economic downturn
Authors: Postdoc, Grad Student, Actual PI, Famous PI who did nothing.
How junk is jabberwockied is a longstanding problem in biology. Here, we tested the hypothesis that junk is jabberwockied by economic downturn by examining the crystal structure of gobbledegook bound to schmutz. Surprisingly, the conserved ACDC domain is required for jabberwockying junk, revealing the molecular mechanism of economic downturn as a novel basis for junk recruitment to jabberwockying sites.
In terms of the actual scientific content, the same work written up different ways can have completely different chances, because most journals make their initial decision on whether to send a paper out for review using only the abstract and author list.
You're kidding yourself if you think that the writing, and who does it, is not important in determining where your papers get published, who ends up reading them, and how much they get out of it.