I can't speak to this particular article, but oftentimes special editions of journals, like this one (i.e. effectively a symposium on the work of another), are not subjected to rigorous peer review.

On the one hand, this is the cached defense that I have for the Sokal hoax, so now I have an internal conflict on my hands. If I believe that Tipler's paper shouldn't have been published, then it's unclear why Sokal's should have been.

Oh dear, oh dear. How to resolve this conflict?

Perhaps rum...