With regards to method section of paper, while it is an important part for reproducibility, it is not writing in great details in top journals. The reasons I think lie in it is mostly in the supplementary material, the multiple methods used make it crazily long, furthermore applications of the commercial kits and highly-automated machines make it not necessary for researcher to write in great details.
Anyway, I agree that papers from Nature/Science are hard to read sometime, especially without reading the supplementary.
However, even today I find that roughly half the publications are not worth the paper they are printed on, or the bandwidth to download them.
Here is another reference you could check: http://andrewgelman.com/2016/02/04/the-notorious-n-h-s-t-pre...