Seems tasteless. Maybe the author doesn't understand, maybe ChatGPT wrote the article & incorrect reference, maybe this is an attempt at SEO.
[0]: https://pure.tue.nl/ws/files/2152975/632939.pdf [1]: https://doi.org/10.1080/15326340802427497
Seems tasteless. Maybe the author doesn't understand, maybe ChatGPT wrote the article & incorrect reference, maybe this is an attempt at SEO.
[0]: https://pure.tue.nl/ws/files/2152975/632939.pdf [1]: https://doi.org/10.1080/15326340802427497
> A comparison between the Israeli queue and a regular queue
> It turns out that the Israeli queue is very efficient. To demonstrate this we calculate...
I downloaded it from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228675335_Polling_w...
The citation generator makes it clear the Jan/2008 version of https://doi.org/10.1080/15326340802427497 is to be cited.
Your linked Jul/2008 paper has no version or prior publication data, which makes it a bit gnarly to untangle. It does, however, mention reference [5] for "a sketch" (that doesn't exist), and links to itself as the source in the references section. There's something entirely suspicious about this version.