When will psychology finally be recognized as a pseudoscience?

[John 6IX Breezy]

I don't think we can make any judgement about the papers in that journal until we see the methodologies used. That's what determines whether they're sufficiently scientific or not. Not the abstract or the fact that they seem to be dealing with unquantifiable topics. 

And insulting the one about the cultural foundations of human memory is particularly narrow-minded. We all know that memory is extremely unreliable, edited and constructed over time. We can remember things that never happened or forget things that did. And all of this is -- to a large degree -- influenced by what our culture teaches us. So that is a fascinating and probably important field of research.

Yes; and for context here is the first paragraph of the conclusion of that paper, and the link to the full paper: The Cultural Foundations of Human Memory

"Culture pervades human memory. It supplies the content and context of memory and the meaning and purpose of remembering. Rather than merely being a neurocognitive faculty within the individual, human memory functions as an open system thoroughly immersed in cultural contexts, in which cultural elements constitute and condition mnemonic processes and constructs in producing our experiences of remembering."

One point of clarification is that these are review articles not research articles. Their function is to summarize the current state of understanding for a given topic. But they do so by presenting all the relevant research and placing them within an overarching theoretical framework. Think of them as chapters in a textbook. Here is the link to one of the studies they presented in the review: Attending Holistically v. Analytically: Comparing the context sensitivity of Japanese and Americans

One would need to look at these individual studies to find a methods section. There's more I could say but I'll give you the opportunity to skim through the links first.