Would it point at a serious problem? I think a lot of people misunderstand how review works. The problem exists if these papers become highly cited and influential. Plenty of garbage gets published, even in good outlets. This approach takes advantage of the public's incorrect understanding of the expectations of peer review.
It also doesn't help that the article seems to deliberately hide which papers actually got accepted.
I think natural sciences will be self correcting in this respect. If something new and important has been discovered, people will want to use it / build on it and thus it will have to be replicated.
It also doesn't help that the article seems to deliberately hide which papers actually got accepted.