Initially in my career, when I was sent an article to referee my decision to reject/approve used to be influenced on how "good" the journal was (IF, SciMago's Q). I.e.: if the article was ok but the results seemed "not enough" for a Q1 journal, then I would advise not to publish there.
I no longer do this.
My current approach is: if the article is well written and the results are reasonable, even if they seem small or not entirely novel, I'll approve. My reasoning is that the researchers themselves should be the judges of whether the work is important or not in the field; the impact of the journals on the process should be restricted to publishing reasonable work and nothing else.
Do journals expect us (the researchers/referees) to filter out articles based on their status? If this is true, should we even care?
I understand this is a heavily subjective topic. I believe the discussion is relevant to the site, if it's not go ahead and close.