My bullshit detector is going off big time here: a popsci article citing another popsci article on phys.org, which cites the original paper but with a broken DOI link, and the original paper being published in what looks like a really crappy journal, whose publisher is on Beall's list of predatory publishers.<p>Maaaybe the science is good, I don't know since I can't find the paper. But if it's good science, and this is a new and cool result, why is it published in a really crappy journal?<p>Edit: as itcrowd below says, and the paper conclusions also state, this study only confirms the dating of these remains. The first paper giving this dating is from 2014. Otherwise the paper looks like decent science, although I'm not a paleontologist. Publishing non-novel results is very difficult, and I now believe this is the reason for the choice of journal.