I have no answer on that question – the differentiation between qualified science, parascience and quack is not easy. Nature medicine, however, knows
The recent controversy kicked off when The Australian newspaper and The Scientist magazine reported on the existence of the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine …
An internal review at Elsevier in May uncovered five other sponsored publications that resembled peer-review journals in looks: the Australasian Journal of General Practice, the Australasian Journal of Neurology, the Australasian Journal of Cardiology, the Australasian Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine and the Australasian Journal of Clinical Pharmacy.
So the critierium is somewhat with pharma sponsoring although I would better go for criteria of scientific scrutiny.