Pretty sure that there are scientific journals that anybody can buy their way into, just like "Who's Who". The peer review comes from people reading the journal, I don't think there is much prior review of submissions. If everyone was acting in good faith, then not weeding out wild ideas too early would be a GOOD thing. Throwing out lots of ideas an letting the marketplace of ideas decided was a societal good... until we came up with technology that is much, much faster than humans at writing up wild ideas.
The flip side is that with that much AI slop out there, any journal that accepts AI slop is going to be flooded with slop. In the interest of remaining in business, they are going to have to do some serious filtering of submissions now... which was probably the point of the original article.