Interesting that the journal claims to judge only on scientific process and not impact, which sounds like a good idea for publishing negative results and replications and such, but then they wind up publishing some really outrageous claims like a paper supporting homeopathy. Seems like the opposite of the stated goal, but I guess they can make more money by publishing straight up bad science instead of staying true to their mission statement.

That controversies page was surprisingly entertaining overall though, I have to say. Clearly the authors don't even take the journal seriously: "The face of Donald Trump was hidden in an image of baboon feces in a paper published in 2018. The journal later removed the image."

Scientific Reports is very common source of HN posts.

People see only the domain name nature.com and think it's quality source.