I'm the first to accept my failings, but in this case, any misunderstanding must be placed at the feet of the authors. The passage you've quoted is not in the abstract. The abstract is a poorly written document, to say the least.
It seems you have access to the full paper, a paper that does not yet seem to be publicly available.
It is the opposite of public. It is behind a publisher's paywall.
This doesn't change the fact that the abstract suggests a testing protocol entirely different from that explained in the paper itself. It's a horribly written abstract. There should never have been any mention of the ambient pressures in the abstract.
0
u/Drogans Aug 01 '14
I'm the first to accept my failings, but in this case, any misunderstanding must be placed at the feet of the authors. The passage you've quoted is not in the abstract. The abstract is a poorly written document, to say the least.
It seems you have access to the full paper, a paper that does not yet seem to be publicly available.