Yes this specifically excludes Nature, Science, and Cell, which is critical because those are the career-making journals all of us academics must currently bow down to. Please Gates Foundation force their hand!
Nature and Science are high profile, but due to ridiculous space constraints, I groan whenever a seminal paper is published there. If there is meat to the article, it's in the supplement, which forces a really awkward way of reading articles.
Cell is somewhat better.
But ideally the community would abandon Nature and Science as being the gold standard of publication. Field-specific journals that allow science to be published sensibly would be much better. When was the last time that a molecular biologist benefited from having a physicist brush past their highly technical article on epigenetics because it happened to be in Science? The benefit of these cross-field journals are somewhat limited, IMHO.
Complete isolation between disciplines doesn't sound like a very good idea to me. Cross-pollination can be useful in surprising ways.
Further, the point of science isn't to advance the careers of scientists, it's to increase human knowledge and capability. Collecting and distributing research from many disciplines furthers that purpose better than isolating disciplines.
However my point is that Science and Nature do nothing to little to support cross-pollination. And that their main purpose as being the "high profile" journals is that they serve to advance the careers of those that get their paper published there.
In some fields arXiv may have improved matters, but most fields still rely on journals.
For example, if I knew that Leonard Susskind read a paper and cited, shared, liked, or bookmarked it, then that could easily replace my fundamental need of having the paper stamped by a trusted authority. If scientists could share, cite, and discuss papers on an open source platform (like Facebook, but for Academia), I believe that we wouldn't need these gatekeepers anymore, and they would become obsolete. The real authority has always been the scientists who are doing good, promising research, not some contrived group of scientists who are solely reviewing papers for the sake of assessing their quality.
An (possibly flawed) analogy: do need CNN/ABC/FOX when we have YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter to propagate news?