Of all three reviews of a recent Science Advances submission, mine was the one that was paricularly critical of the methods, with numerous questions about documentation, references, data, sample sizes, etc.
Guess which reviewer was the only one not invited for a second round of reviews and now the paper is accepted?

Point in case why GlamMagz are the main driver of the #replication crisis and not paper mills or AI slop. The latter are just convenient distractors from the actual problem.