If this preprint is publishable after peer-review, the Science article's author should go ahead then and use it to support his article.
The second question is what your complaint against the preprint specifically is. You allow your comment's reader to infer a lot, but actually say nothing other than your repeated claim of "garbage". Do you care to elaborate or is your comment set up ironically to parallel your complaint?
Fake Publications in Biomedical Science: Red-flagging Method Indicates Mass Production
Bernhard A. Sabel, Emely Knaack, Gerd Gigerenzer, Mirela Bilc
...
Methods To identify indicators able to red-flagged fake publications (RFPs), we sent questionnaires to authors. Based on author responses, three indicators were identified: “author’s private email”, “international co-author” and “hospital affiliation”. These were used to analyze 15,120 PubMed®-listed publications regarding date, journal, impact factor, and country of author and validated in a sample of 400 known fakes and 400 matched presumed non-fakes using classification (tallying) rules to red-flag potential fakes. For a subsample of 80 papers we used an additional indicator related to the percentage of RFP citations.
Results The classification rules using two (three) indicators had sensitivities of 86% (90%) and false alarm rates of 44% (37%). From 2010 to 2020 the RFP rate increased from 16% to 28%. Given the 1.3 million biomedical Scimago-listed publications in 2020, we estimate the scope of >300,000 RFPs annually. Countries with the highest RFP proportion are Russia, Turkey, China, Egypt, and India (39%-48%), with China, in absolute terms, as the largest contributor of all RFPs (55%).
Conclusions Potential fake publications can be red-flagged using simple-to-use, validated classification rules to earmark them for subsequent scrutiny.
...
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.05.06.23289563v1
= new reply since forum marked as read