On the contrary, this is a excellent example of the benefits of open publishing. A very dubious paper is hyped in the press and the actually published work is available to all to be read and critiqued as thoroughly as it deserves. This, in my opinion, is completely independent from issues with the benefits and problems of peer review.

PLoS articles are peer reviewed as well. I was commenting about the standards PLoS sets for itself by allowing this article with this title.

Thanks to the fact it is open and published under PLoS's "limited warranty" everybody can read the actual paper and are encouraged to judge it. And this is good, because papers are voices in the discussion not an indisputable statements of truth.

Nature and Science pursuit for perfection is not only futile (Schön) but also slowly changes them into scientific tabloids.

What a baseless comment. There's already issues with closed publishing, and this is just one example, not statistically significant.