For context, you have a consulting business, and spoke at a conference about AI in administering justice organized under auspices of recently ousted illiberal government of Poland.
Here's an abstract to one of your "papers": "The paper presents selected tools, as described by their developers. The list includes Hello Quantum, Hello Qiskit, Particle in a Box, Psi and Delta, QPlayLearn, Virtual Lab by Quantum Flytrap, Quantum Odyssey..."
Et patati et patata - no way to tell what you're about with your review other than enumeration and platitudes. Yet you criticize authors of a review paper (detail revealed by immediate next sentence, one you curiously decided to omit from quoting) that clearly state their angle first and at least have something to say. It's just not aligned with your opinions, nothing to do with writing.
You by the way demand "results" of a review paper. What were the research results of you playing quantum web games?
I sense personal animosity and almost feel honored that it is behind a throwaway account.
The talk is publicly available (in Polish) at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChEsmwe7YN0. Which part of it do you find objectionable? In particular, a large portion was directly related to biases, limitations, dangers, and general misconceptions. I'm not sure how this accounts for lobbying rather than educating. And as anyone who has ever seen my social media, I am open with my liberal views.
Ad paper - it is an interesting pick. First, what is particularly unclear or confusing in the abstract? Second, right now, it is one of the most cited in quantum education. You are invited to see research publications on quantum information - rather than, as in this case, education & software.
Here's an abstract to one of your "papers": "The paper presents selected tools, as described by their developers. The list includes Hello Quantum, Hello Qiskit, Particle in a Box, Psi and Delta, QPlayLearn, Virtual Lab by Quantum Flytrap, Quantum Odyssey..."
Et patati et patata - no way to tell what you're about with your review other than enumeration and platitudes. Yet you criticize authors of a review paper (detail revealed by immediate next sentence, one you curiously decided to omit from quoting) that clearly state their angle first and at least have something to say. It's just not aligned with your opinions, nothing to do with writing.
You by the way demand "results" of a review paper. What were the research results of you playing quantum web games?