Just to be clear, these papers were published in peer reviewed journals, unlike Sokal's. This is what makes it such a big deal; you can always find some magazine to publish anything, and the purpose of peer review is to catch inconsistencies - never mind wholesale fraud and fiction. A peer reviewer who can't tell there no meaningful research and the data doesn't add up (it was faked not only to not add up, but also used to draw totally contradictory conclusions in different portions of the same paper) is useless, and the journal they review for worthless for using them for that purpose. Yet one editor even suggested that somehow this was a waste of the peer reviewer's time!!! I mean, the peer reviewer should be dropped on the spot, not defended. Either such a reviewer is totally incompetent in their field of expertise, or they didn't do their job at all. It reflects on the journal itself for relying on such a reviewer, in particular raising questions whether it's even interested in scientific inquiry, or is political entertainment disguised as science (what is often called scientism, which is the peddling of science as a belief system, either across the board or when it suits).