Originally Posted by Val
I'm not really sure what you're looking for.
Really, an explanation as to how something that looked like a peer-reviewed journal could publish something that looks so bad. Explanations I can think of include:
- this isn't really a peer-reviewed journal in the sense I understand it (nobody critically read the paper ever, or they did but nobody forced the author to rewrite); or
- actually it isn't as bad as I think, e.g. because someone who worked in the field and understood the conventions of the field would be able to see things that to them are obvious explanations of the discrepancies reported here.

Of these the first seems the more likely, but maybe I'm wrong or maybe there's another explanation I haven't thought of. I'd just like to know!

Email: my username, followed by 2, at google's mail