The problem with that evaluation is that credibility can only rightly be evaluated by author, not by publication, and unless we're talking about scientific jour

The problem with that evaluation is that credibility can only rightly be evaluated by author, not by publication, and unless we're talking about scientific journals (and sometimes not even then), editors can't be expected to be subject matter experts in everything a paper ever writes about. Example: Bloomberg is still a legitimate business paper of record despite running that unfounded story about backdoored motherboards. I'd take anything those authors put out with a shaker-full of salt in the future, but Bloomberg is still legitimate.