This is not an editing error. A zero fingering in some publisher's urtext editions of piano music (e.g. Henle) is a heads-up that the same note is also written for the other hand (as when left and right hand figures coincide on a note). In this case, the note is being held by the other hand and is not to be restruck.
Henle usually makes a general comment (e.g. in the preface) about the fingering (e.g. all was done by the editor) or uses a combination of roman and italics to distinguish the editor's from the composer's (e.g. in Chopin). (In the case of Henle editions, the fingering is often done by someone other than the editor.)
IMO, the fast tempo of the piece rather obviously rules out restriking the note and the way Scriabin (and other composers) notate this is much cleaner and clearer than writing a rest for the one hand.
The note isn't technically omitted -- only the (re)attack is. If you did play the note again with the left hand, you would be shortening the duration of the 2nd note of the corresponding r.h. triplet. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Another way of thinking about this is that, at tempo, the left- and right-hand notes effectively coincide, and since the right hand has the melody, it logically should play the note. Also, you want to avoid entangling the hands.
Here is another example of a "zero" fingering from the new Henle edition of the Beethoven sonatas, edited by Norbert Gertsch and Murray Perahia, with fingerings by Murray Perahia:
Piano Sonata Op.31 N.1, Rondo
In m.133 the lower D in the r.h. is assigned a 0 because Beethoven wrote the same D in the left hand. You can't play the note with the r.h. because the l.h. has to restrike it.
From the composer's (as well as the structural and "musical") point of view, it would both ugly and pedantic to write a rest for one hand. It's clear that the pianist simply has to choose with which hand to play the note, which "belongs" to both hands.