Take anyone's judgment of what constitutes a top five philosophy journal with a grain of salt, because the judgments depend entirely on circular arguments. But with regard to Social Text, I have never used it in my work and so I am not qualified to judge its merits or lack thereof. However, I am familiar with the Sokal affair and briefly, we should think about what it does and does not show. First, it might be that in repeating what he takes to be fashionable deconstructionist language, with a quasi physics spin on it, he expressed a position that might, for some, be justifiable. Many have in fact interpreted 20th c. physics in terms of some form of relativism. Second, if his article is utter junk, and it was accepted anyway, it might just indicate that the editor was asleep at the wheel, made a big mistake, or that the journal was junk. It should not be taken to indict an entire type of philosophy. I could certainly write an article in analytic language, expressing views commonly held among analytic philosophers, and I could get it published, without believing in those views at all (in fact, withholding my strong criticisms of them), particularly if I described myself in the article as a physicist and used some physics terminology. Analytic philosophers, like continental philosophers or comparative linguists in the Social Text situation, are very ready to accept work dressed up in the language of science. Maybe that's how Sean Kelly, a continental philosopher, trained at analytic schools, but with the key qualification of some scientific training, was able to get hired at Princeton and become philosophy chair at Harvard, despite not knowing squat about Nietzsche (to judge by his article in the NYT's Philosopher's Stone this week).