Not really, given the miserable quality of the papers they publish. Maybe ‘newspaper‘ or ‘journal’ might be ok, but ‘academic journal‘ requires a certain amount of quality.
> The problem with this article is that what it's methodology tests whether it's possible to get low quality papers into certain academic journals, but it's stated theory and conclusion are that academic journals are deliberately publishing bad science to push an agenda that this article calls "Grievance Studies".
Academic journals publish papers deliberately. They don’t ‘accidentally’ publish bad papers, I can assure you that nobody accidentally clicks the ‘publish’ button. Whatever further agenda the article may or may not push pales in comparison to the actual problems it uncovers.
> The bad guys here are the random authors who have designed a bad experiment, deliberately set out to undermine academic institutions, and then rather than presenting real evidence have written a political hit piece.
Claiming these people undermine academic institutions is like blaming your upstairs neighbour stomping on the ground for your house of cards imploding. If a journal accepts and publishes such submissions, it was never an academic institution to begin with. The completely sufficient evidence for this is the acceptance and publication of those papers.