Must be because of what i posted.

instead of the article being scrutenized (and educating people on how to detect pseudoscience) the post got removed.

At least i got a nice reply showing what was someone’s reason for doubting the scientific process of that publisher… before it got moderated.

Maybe it’s possible to use a flags of some sort, to indicate that, even though it’s a scientific publication and was peer reviewed, that this Lemmy community thinks it’s a bad piece. (but not by up/downvote as a downvote means it goes to the end of the pile, and the education effect is lost)

Like, i want to put this article under your attention, so that i get an idea of what others think about it https://bmjpublichealth.bmj.com/content/2/1/e000282 But i’m afraid to post it, because of the possible backlash(i.e. moderation and maybe banning?)

Thanks. yes i realized the last one, and know of his work.

Looking at the “method”, it doesn’t look like rocket-science. I’d like to know, is the publication itself a fraud or not?

Thanks for the tip.

The internet page says “Potential predatory scholarly open-access journals”

So i hope at least a few read the paper and assess their method

The interview actually had much more interesting content…