I think phrases like “a journal that got caught publishing a questionable study” imply a level of malice that isn’t appropriate. Journals publish studies all the time with some degree of peer review and a fraction of them are going to have problems, plus there is always the possibility of deliberate fraud that peer-review systems are explicitly not designed to catch. You shouldn’t believe every published study is 100% accurate just because it was published. But you also shouldn’t use phrases like “got caught” unless your goal is to imply deliberate malfeasance.
Journals operate in an information brokerage business and they are compensated to ensure reasonable review of what they publish. What you wrote would be applicable to something like reddit but you can't accept funds for a job that you don't carry out.
The problem here is that journals are relying on an open source peer review process for which they pay nothing, and then trying to cash in on the fruits of that. Blaming the reviewers is like blaming the medieval serfs for the fact that their landlords sold you rotten grain.
Even if they were paid, it would not check for this. Peer review checks formalities, obvious methodological problems, citations, that sort of stuff. It is not an independent study meant to validate data themselves.
