It really is. No research, no accountability, no desire to correct the narrative when mistakes are highlighted. All to easy to ignore or cite "research oversights" and with the majority of readers of these general retro publications they won't be SAM owners so they'll take what's printed as gospel.
The review of my mechanical keyboard with the inaccurate synopsis was in Pixel Addict and from my interactions to bring it to their attention they appear to be all too happy to hide behind their disclaimer: "We take great care to ensure that what we publish is accurate, but cannot be liable for any mistakes or misprints." and that is certainly not the way to run a publication. From my own experiences producing SAM Revival over the years I'd have to say that receiving feedback has always been an essential part of what helps improve the magazine.