Its reputation among people like Lakens, and others complaining about the poor state of statistics and rigor in modern science, is that it features overinterpreted overhyped results from small underpowered experiments, and when errors are pointed out it's usually not too interested in correcting them. The editors are more interested in "important" results than methodologically rigorous ones.

It's similar to how Andrew Gelman always sarcastically refers to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences as the Prestigious Proceedings, because that's invariably the adjective used in news reports, yet many of the articles are of the "female-named hurricanes cause more damage" type.