It reads as if it is a pay once passed by peer review cos we can't guarantee open access any other way journal, which is SLIGHTLY different. In the old days, you only 'paid' if you wanted colour figures in journals, but all access (okay, really old days, only accessible on paper or the author got given a small number of paper pre-prints to give to best friends) had to be paid for, usually by a university library or similar paying vast amounts to get access to a whole bunch of stuff. now we have online access, university libraries pay again in the majority of cases.
And actually they address this issue of pay-to-publish journals at the end of their author summary if you read right to the end.
So, it is has not been 'debunked', the journal was suggested by Taylor and Francis, and says it does peer-review. I assume they have the reviews anyway, since some changes were made on the suggestions made by the reviewers.
So both pay-to-publish AND social sciences and post-modernism take hits with this one.
P.S. My university library happily links to it as a Taylor & Francis journal. And the reviewing editor for the paper seems to be a proper academic.
P.P.S. Says on the journal webpage that:
"Following the publication of a hoax article in Cogent Social Sciences on May 19th 2017, a number of editors – who were not involved in the peer review of this article – have resigned from the journal. Their names have been removed from the editorial board above. We would like to thank them for their contribution to the journal."
Although Jamie Halsall who was listed as reviewing editor is still listed as a Senior Editor. So NOT clear to me if some editors have resigned because they now think the journal and their peer-review processes have lost all credibility, so have asked to be removed????
Curiouser and curiouser................ :-)