John Wilkins has collected lots of links to discussions of the Synthese scandal, and one thing that has struck me, as I have read through many (not all) of them is that all those trying to defend or at least excuse what the Synthese editors did are all philosophers who have recently published in Synthese or who have articles in press with Synthese. This, of course, might just be coincidence, or it might be a product of the fact that: (1) those with experience with Synthese have confidence in the quality of the journal's editorial practices, and so are skeptical of the allegations at issue in this instance based on their own past experience; or (2) they have a vested interest in sustaining the reputation of a journal on which they depend, professionally.
In some cases, both considerations may be playing a role. I will say it is a bit worrisome to me, however, that I can not, yet anyway, find any philosophers with no investment in Synthese willing to conclude that, on the public record, things are fine. (By the same token, it is impressive how many philosophers who have published in Synthese have stepped forward to either sign the petition or even support the boycott.)