Well, SR did have a bit of a credibility issue when they started, and even today, it's not exactly a top journal. I understand it's not a criterion that the art

Well, SR did have a bit of a credibility issue when they started, and even today, it's not exactly a top journal. I understand it's not a criterion that the articles published are groundbreaking or similar, just that they're decent science and that the authors are willing to pay the hefty fee. Edit: See here for one particular discussion, from last year http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2016/06/15/more-on-scientific-reports-and-on-faked-papers http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2016/06/15/mor...