• Insekticus@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    21 hours ago

    Marie Curie died in 1934 in her 50s. The page says it was published in a journal of April 2002.

    If the editor “knew” Marie enough to have educated discussions with her on her deathbed (at least long enough to be “friends”), let’s say the editor was really young in their 20s, that would make the editor at the time of writing in their response in their late 80’s to early 90s… working hard at some subpar journal?

    Without more detail, the editor’s response doesn’t pass the sniff test, and it sounds like they’re full of shit.

    • alastel@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      20 hours ago

      I looked for the issue on anna’s archive, the editor in chief was Martin Zatz, born in 1944, so if it’s him yeah he couldn’t have met Marie Curie, but there is no confirmation that he was the one answering. However page 156 features two very cute raccoons, so it was worth investigating.

      TLDR: couldn’t confirm, found raccoons

      • pseudo@jlai.luOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        17 hours ago

        Wait! I had flipped through the whole issue and I manage to miss raccoons…

    • DesertCreosote@piefed.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      16 hours ago

      Lobachevsky also passed away in 1856, so I doubt he would be referred to as the colleague of anyone from the last hundred or so years before publication.

      I did appreciate the reference to “Lobachevsky” by Tom Lehrer, though. (And who deserves the credit / And who deserves the blame? / Nikolai Ivanovich Lobachevsky is his name!)

      • Sergio@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        16 hours ago

        Yeah I’m like 95% sure this is a joke, and “Chelm institute” is a satirical reference.

        Unfortunately I can’t pay the $100+ for the journal articles to figure out if that’s true or not.

  • StinkyFingerItchyBum@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    edit-2
    21 hours ago

    unoriginal, plodding, pedestrian and pointless.

    Did the peer reviewer call in sick and emergency sub a NYT book reviewer?

  • fubarx@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    21 hours ago

    You said “two of the three reviewers found substantive deficiencies in rationale, design, validation of results, interpretation, and presentation.”

    So… what is left?