Difference between revisions of "Talk:1847: Dubious Study"
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
"downloaded bi-annually" is misleadingly close to "released bi-annually" --[[User:JakubNarebski|JakubNarebski]] ([[User talk:JakubNarebski|talk]]) 07:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC) | "downloaded bi-annually" is misleadingly close to "released bi-annually" --[[User:JakubNarebski|JakubNarebski]] ([[User talk:JakubNarebski|talk]]) 07:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC) | ||
| + | --- but I would understand it as if the Journal was only downloaded twice within a year, i.e. only two people have downloaded (and maybe read) the Journal so far. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.118|162.158.92.118]] 08:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC) | ||
The National Academy of Proceedings sounds more like a legal document collection than a scientific journal to me. [[User:Gjgfuj|TheSandromatic]] ([[User talk:Gjgfuj|talk]]) 07:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC) | The National Academy of Proceedings sounds more like a legal document collection than a scientific journal to me. [[User:Gjgfuj|TheSandromatic]] ([[User talk:Gjgfuj|talk]]) 07:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 08:24, 7 June 2017
The name of the organisation is suggestive of legitimacy but rather vague. That would be a red flag for me. 108.162.245.166 06:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
"downloaded bi-annually" is misleadingly close to "released bi-annually" --JakubNarebski (talk) 07:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
--- but I would understand it as if the Journal was only downloaded twice within a year, i.e. only two people have downloaded (and maybe read) the Journal so far. 162.158.92.118 08:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
The National Academy of Proceedings sounds more like a legal document collection than a scientific journal to me. TheSandromatic (talk) 07:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
