• Frenchy@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Well that’s… unfortunate. I’d like to know how the fuck that got past editors, typesetters and peer reviewers. I hope this is some universally ignored low impact factor pay to print journal.

    • fossilesque@mander.xyzOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      We all know Elsevier only upholds the highest standards, after all why would they have such a large market share?

      • NegativeInf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        That name. Being a hobbyist with niche interests has made me hate them so very much. Scihub forever.

    • gregorum@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      because they’re all as bad as most of us and only read the headline :(

    • GenEcon@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      Since the rest of the paper looks decent (I am no expert in this field), I have a guess: it got to review and it came back with a ‘minor review’ and the comment ‘please summarize XY at the end’.

      In low impact journals minor reviews are handeled in a way, that the editor trusts the scientists to address minor changes accordingly. Afterwards it goes to production, where some badly payed people – most of the time from India – put everything in format, send out a proof with a deadline of max 2 days and then it will be published.

      I don’t want to defend this practice, but thats how something like this can get through.