Alt text: An AI generated image of a rat with abnormally large testicles filled with spelling errors BECAUSE ITS A FUCKING AI GENERATED IMAGE
Alt text: An AI generated image of a rat with abnormally large testicles filled with spelling errors BECAUSE ITS A FUCKING AI GENERATED IMAGE
As this journal has an impact factor of 5.5, they likely had at least two reviewers write reviews for this, reading the whole paper. The editor may have only read abstract and conclusions, to decide relevance to the journal.
While the reviewers may have just generated their reviews with AI themselves, the editor was likely still honest. But just didn’t read the whole paper, because that is not necessarily their job, depending on journal policy.
On the other hand, usually one can propose reviewers to a journal. Of course, one should propose reviewers that don’t have a conflict of interest. But they may just have proposed their friends, fooling the journal. The friends then wrote positive reviews for the trash paper.
Well, I cannot imagine that the journal added in bad faith, but they should be more defensive against these kinds of bad-faithed submissions.
One of the reviewers said it wasn’t his job to check the graphics, just the text. Lazy ass.
So the reviewers are public?
I just blame the authors. I can see your point, the reviewing process was likely corrupt, but if it was, the authors are the ones to blame. It’s just antisocial behavior, could even be called trolling. I don’t know in your country, but in mine, authors’ names can get into an article in misterious ways. Maybe someone was fedup with not receiving/having to give “due” credit.