Re: [vsx-dis] So where are amateurs publishing their material?
- In the case of IBVS I think it's due to the change in editorial policy, not VSX.
On 5/25/07, skepticalones <skepticalones@...> wrote:
> --- In email@example.com, "hannahvarleyfromdublin"
> <hannahvarleyfromdublin@...> wrote:
> > VSX has clearly made a VERY substantial contribution to the total
> > amount of refereed variable star material published and whatever
> > supporting infrastructure that is put in place needs to reflect this.
> Expand on this, with specific examples illustrating the point.
> I am aware of no evidence to support this statement, specifically
> within the context of published refereed variable star material either
> accrediting VSX or having VSX appelations. You make this statement of
> fact yet provide no evidence, especially contradictory as you had just
> previously reported that next to nothing was being published in
> several of the usual venues for such material.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
- The JAAVSO has been more active, it seems to me, as well:
As a personal aside, I will never again submit a paper to the IBVS. I
think they suck ass. I have several papers in the works that will go
either to JAAVSO or PASP.
On May 25, 2007, at 3:18 PM, James Bedient wrote:
> In the case of IBVS I think it's due to the change in editorial
> policy, not VSX.
> http://www.aavso.org/publications/ejaavso/index.shtmlIt is hard to understand why they ask for things of astrophysical interest
> As a personal aside, I will never again submit a paper to the IBVS. I
> think they suck ass. I have several papers in the works that will go
> either to JAAVSO or PASP.
only and they ban data-mining results and however they publish photometric
sequences for novae and times of minima for anything.