He found that ignorance and laziness is rampant, that journal peer review is non-existent, and skepticism about results and methods is non-existent.
He has done a tremendous public service exposing the flaws in a system. With any luck consumers of these information sources will take everything with an enormous, skeptical grain of salt, because the last and best line of defense is your own skepticism critical thinking.
You can't delegate thinking.
This isn't about peer review, because the paper was knowingly submitted only to journals known not to conduct peer review. Quoting from the article:
> We needed to get our study published pronto, but since it was such bad science, we needed to skip peer review altogether. Conveniently, there are lists of fake journal publishers.
And later:
> The new publisher’s CEO, Carlos Vasquez, emailed Johannes to let him know that we had produced an “outstanding manuscript,” and that for just 600 Euros it “could be accepted directly in our premier journal.”
This is really more about science journalism than about science.
These kinds of journals are difficult for a lay person to tell apart from actual, scientific journals, but distinguishing between the two is exactly the kind of job a competent science journalist would do. Inept science journalists, on the other hand, give these fake journals a reason to exist by citing them unchallenged.