Are top journals hostile to formal and/or experimental work?

A young philosopher writes:

I have heard some more senior philosophers say that the best philosophy journals are less likely to publish papers that have experimental content, less likely to publish papers that have formal content, and much less likely to publish papers that have both experimental and formal content. I'm not sure what to make of this sentiment. Are the top four or five general-interest philosophy journals really less likely to publish papers with experimental and/or formal content? (I am especially interested to know if people think that this is true about the Philosophical Review, since that journal is clearly in a class by itself in terms of reputation in the discipline.) If so, why isn't that a big black mark against those journals?

I'll note that PPR has published a lot of experimental philosophy, as well as important critiques of Xphil.  But I've opened comments for other opinions.  If your comment mentions a journal by name, you will have to include a full name in the signature line; all comments must include a valid e-mail address, which will not appear.