Please read the following question
The question received 3 close votes (2 duplicate & 1 community-specific reason) and 2 down votes.
It is not at all a duplicate of another. And I am not aware whether the community-specific reason is apt because I don't know about the notation used by Elsevier. I don't know whether I need to interpret it based on the context of peer-reviewing or as in the general case.
I want to know what are the potential issues with this question to refrain before posting questions on our main site.
The main objections from users I found are
- It is a trivial question and not related to academia alone.
How can I know whether it is trivial or not if I am not in to review process and didn't find explicit information regarding it? How safe it is to say that the interpretation of '3+' is the same as in programming or others if I don't know about the review requests etc., You can read one of my comments
If we are uncertain about the number, it is recommended to keep 'n+'. But if the editor sends a review request to a particular(fixed) number of reviewers, then what is the need to tell '>=n' instead of the exact number? So, there might be some information like the review process will be started if at least 'n' reviewers accept and the remaining can be extra or optional!
- It is not useful in any way
I did not ask the question because it is useful to me. I am just curious to understand. And I don't think usability is a necessary criterion to ask any question on our main site.
No one provided an exact answer till now. Then how can I convince myself that it is a trivial question or of low standard?