While I disagree with the term Frank used he definitely has a grasp of science and the current delema that pseudo scientists and corrupted journals have created. Unlike some others who refuse to assess their own short sightedness.
Name a journal you believe to have corrupted the process, incidences of such corruption and your evidence for believing so. You might also identify pseudo scientists you find my side of this argument to be using.
The better question is which ones are not corrupt. Simply put, that list is very short.
Can't name a journal. Can't name a pseudo-scientist. Got it.