Yes, anything is always up for critical inspection (pretty much), as far as I'm concerned. If you show me a thorough analysis showing that their content is syst

Yes, anything is always up for critical inspection (pretty much), as far as I'm concerned. If you show me a thorough analysis showing that their content is systematically biased, I'd have a look. Or if you show me that a particular study is flawed. I'm well aware of the massive replication crises in multiple disciplines, and of the fact that this news section is separate from their journals. But the poster was only questioning the publisher's motives (which I think can't be done without looking at who the publisher is and what their incentives are, which the poster didn't do), without discussing the evidence at hand at all, and without any acknowledgement of the fact that their own reaction to this news might also be driven by what they want to be true.