I think there's a huge difference between describing norms in a vivid way and singling out individual people.

I publish things that in my judgment are good science.

It is typical for implicit status hierarchies of influence and esteem to emerge in interpersonal encounters, especially those that are goal oriented.

Some people have set up sort of "gotcha" algorithms that apparently crawl through psychology articles and look for fraudulent p-values [a measure of the likelihood that experimental results weren't a fluke]. But they're including rounding errors that don't change the significance levels of the results, and they're doing it anonymously.

If you have an effect that nobody can replicate, then your phenomenon fades away. So if you want to to have a legacy, then you jolly well better have an effect that replicates.

If people are going to do post-publication peer review, they need to abide by the same rules as they abide by for pre-publication peer review: not being ad hominem, being respectful, giving the author a chance to respond in a reasonable way.

Promoting open and critical and respectful scientific discourse seems like a pretty good goal to me.