But yes it was and no it didn't. That's always bugged me about the Sokal affair and people holding it up as an example of anything. While the editors did publish the paper, which is a basic problem in and of itself, they claim they wanted big revisions that Sokal refused to make, but then they published it anyway. Since the whole point of that journal at the time was to get wide-ranging viewpoints, I think there is some merit in the editor's claim of a simple betrayal of trust: they assumed Sokal was being straightforward, and the worst that would come of publishing his piece would be a bunch of letters telling him to stick to his day job. In any case, I don't know if we'll ever a definitive story of what really happened, how carefully they vetted the paper, etc.
Regardless, the journal he submitted the paper to was not peer reviewed, so the whole thing demonstrates nothing about the peer review process.
