> Personally I'd never include Scihub into my workflow in a way that shows up in a publication.
Clearly it was not meant to. Especially if you look at reference 4 here [1], it looks like the internal format of whatever reference database the authors used, was accidentally leaked into to references. Probably missing commas somewhere.
Clearly it was not meant to. Especially if you look at reference 4 here [1], it looks like the internal format of whatever reference database the authors used, was accidentally leaked into to references. Probably missing commas somewhere.
[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187538921...