Where there is a whiff of smoke we often look for fire, no? Without a deep dive into a statistically significant amount of the research how could you say that those papers were probably not fabricated?

It seems that part of the publishing apparatus discovered this flaw as the journal was undergoing a shift in publication models. In that all parties have an interest in the ongoing viability and prestige of the journal, and most often institutions respond to scandals by either coverup or diminishment, who benefits from the news and which party wants to contain the scandal to the review process only?