I agree.
The real shining light here is that a determined amateur was able to get free, volunteer help from inside the community to weather the publication process.
Those who read the review / revision process in this article and were dismayed / convinced the process was flawed should realize this is precisely how review works in many fields. It takes a year to get a paper reviewed and revised, and a "25 page" (TFA) statement of revision is par. Not "all" will have the stomach for that, but once you are part of that process, it's normal.
You consider having to threaten the reputation of an academic journal by emailing the CEO directly before you even make it to the review for a well written, concise, critical paper "part of that process"?
Not even mentioning that it required the publicity and reputation of a well known figure (Sokal) to even open that door for them.
If that's the "shining light" of this industry - I sure as fuck don't want to see the dirty alleyway.
You could claim that Harris Friedman is an insider - although I don't find a nearly retired (at the time - now actually retired) college professor to be particularly "inside" the journal space, but he is certainly a member of the field.
The people who were insiders (Barbara Fredrickson and the reviewers at American Psychologist) are decidedly unhelpful and uninterested outside of throwing folks under the bus and equivocating around how so much fucking fraud/bullshit ended up in their papers.
Those who read the review / revision process in this article and were dismayed / convinced the process was flawed should realize this is precisely how review works in many fields. It takes a year to get a paper reviewed and revised, and a "25 page" (TFA) statement of revision is par. Not "all" will have the stomach for that, but once you are part of that process, it's normal.