It's annoying how the article does not properly say what institution the research comes from in the very first line.
They attribute it to the University of California which consists of ten different campuses and typically Berkeley gets away with being called just University of California, or CAL, because it was the first.
However upon looking up the researchers' name it turns out that they belong to none of these and are actually from the University of Southern California.
I don't understand your point here. Is it that you don't like the sloppy journalism at phys.org? Or that you don't want to bother with reading pre-prints from researchers at schools that aren't Berkeley?
What? Of course it's sloppy journalism. Stating who did the research is important. It's less important in this situation since they link to the actual paper, but it's one of the first things you want to know when you do a report (Who, what, where...). Being incomplete is bad enough, getting it outright wrong is even worse.
They attribute it to the University of California which consists of ten different campuses and typically Berkeley gets away with being called just University of California, or CAL, because it was the first.
However upon looking up the researchers' name it turns out that they belong to none of these and are actually from the University of Southern California.