• MotoAsh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Some of the reviewers have explained it as the software they use doesn’t even load up the images. So unless the picture is a cited figure, it might not get reviewed directly.

    I can kindof understand how something like this could happen. It’s like doing code reviews at work. Even if the logical bug is obvious once the code is running, it might still be very difficult to spot when simply reviewing the changed code.

    We have definitely found some funny business that made it past two reviewers and the original worker, and nobody’s even using machine models to shortcut it! (even things far more visible than logical bugs)

    Still, that only offers an explanation. It’s still an unacceptable thing.

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

        Yea, “should be”, but as said, if it’s not literally directly relevant even while being in the paper, it might get skipped. Lazy? Sure. Still understandable.

        A more apt coding analogy might be code reviewing unit tests. Why dig in to the unit tests if they’re passing and it seems to work already? Lazy? Yes. Though it happens far more than most non-anonymous devs would care to admit!

        • bedrooms@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          No, “should be” as in, it must be reviewed but can be skipped if there’s a concern like revealing the author identity in a double-blind process.