> For all its faults, peer-review is still the best mechanism to keep science in right track. Peer review is often effective, but it can't reliably block frau

> For all its faults, peer-review is still the best mechanism to keep science in right track. Peer review is often effective, but it can't reliably block fraudulent publications like those described in the posted article. Most bad papers are rejected, but the authors can always try again at another journal. Any paper will probably get published somewhere, eventually, even if only in a Hindawi or MDPI journal. The journals aren't accountable to anyone, and as long as they have enough good articles to serve as cover, academics will need to pay for access because citing relevant prior work is obligatory. The publishing system is very weak against fraud.