Oh, so clever.
No. My point was that they try to publish stuff that _they believe_ is credible and which the customers in their niche will perceive to be likewise.
You can try to be a smartass about it, but my original point that the argument that Wiley published Sewell's stuff even though it was "hilariously full of errors" is a bit weak.
(FWIW, I just wrote the author and Wiley has in fact received zero complaints about the scientific credibility of the book, as of yet.) I guess you guys are still working on yours...