Having left things for a few days to see whether there would be any further posts (and to enjoy a fabulous Olympic weekend!), herewith my next set of thoughts.

Thanks to all three of the recent contributors (particularly to the representative of the Silent Majority!), whose comments had a number of common themes. I shall firstly respond to Nick James' first three points though (concerning papers submission and refereeing)

My point about there being insufficient definition of the process did not refer to how to submit a paper (for which there is indeed guidance) but what happens next - I would suggest that there is no guidance about this at all. I would also suggest that what does, in practice, happen next is almost certainly not well-defined and definitely inconsistent. As to there being no discussion entered into after acceptance/rejection, I am happy to see that David Basey seems to agree with me that this is unreasonable. Even if one does not question the decision itself, surely one must be able to question the process by which the decision has been reached if one feels the material has not been fairly assessed?

Moving on to Nick's point about referees, I feel this illuminates one of the areas in this discussion where it seems there has been misunderstanding of the basic principles involved. Nick says that a referee should tell him whether a submission is correct, contains interesting material & is of interest to the Journal readers, and should not be involved in copy editing, technical correction & suggestions for re-writing. Unfortunately, if one consults any standard text on the refereeing of scientific papers, one will find that all but one of these assertions are incorrect!

It is clearly one of the responsibilities of a referee to say whether the content of a submission is correct (or at least not incorrect) but, as I have said on a number of occasions, they should not be asked to give an opinion on interest (either generally or specific to a given Journal). "Interest" is not a criterion by which a scientific paper should be judged, and a fully-independent referee is unlikely, in any case, to have a sufficiently comprehensive knowledge of the interests of a readership to be able to give a judgement on this point.

As to the "editorial" aspects, I agree that a referee should not involve him or herself in the fine detail of this but, again, a reading of standard treatises on refereeing will show that the making of constructive comments and suggestions for re-working is a fundamental part of a referee's "job". As to not making technical corrections, surely this is a part of the "correctness" argument? It would hardly be sensible to let blatant errors go uncorrected, and if a referee expresses doubts as to correctness should he/she not provide a refutation rather than just say "I'm not convinced"?

I shall now move on the the points where a consensus of views is emerging. Almost all contributors so far have said that they rejoice in the good range of articles published in the Journal. I have already said that I fully support this view. However! This does not mean that the definition of "BAA Journal paper" should be widened in order to include a greater range of subject matter for the Journal as a whole. Nick says that, as the BAA is an amateur organisation, it can use any definition of scientific paper that it wants and Paul appears to agree with this. I find this attitude extremely worrying. Unfortunately, if we wish our Journal papers to stand alongside papers published by other prestigious organisations it is absolutely not the case that we can do what we want. Papers in prestigious journals are published in accord with the internationally agreed definition I stated earlier (and which David agrees is accurate) and so if our papers are to stand comparison they must be published to the same standards. If we start making up our own rules then credibility is lost. We may be an amateur organisation, in that no-one is paid for their duties, but surely we must strive for the highest professional standards in all our actions - and that includes the publication of scientific papers.

Again, I totally agree that [most of] those submissions that do not qualify as papers according to the accepted definition should still be published, but in a different section of the Journal - Section reviews, Historical perspectives, Observing seasons etc. This way we still publish the great range of material while maintaining a firm distinction between peer-reviewed papers and articles.

I hope that the above will not be dismissed as a mere "what's in a name?" argument, as the answer in this case is "everything!". A paper published in a science-based journal (as the JBAA is) is a scientific paper and the definition of a scientific paper is not open to us to alter. We should thus work within the definition, publishing as JBAA peer-reviewed papers those submissions that accord with it, to the great advantage of the standing of authors of same and the Journal as a whole, while publishing other "submissions of interest" as articles in other sections. To do otherwise will reflect credit on no-one.

I have already given a link to the definition of "scientific paper" in my document reviewing published JBAA papers, so here's some attachments which explore peer-review in great detail, in case anyone is unsure of the principles which are (or should be!) involved:-


Steve Holmes

I had hoped that once people had more time to tap their keyboards rather than stare at their TV screens in this post-Olympic epoch there might be some more posts on this thread - but no (good number of "views" though - shows the rank-and-file are at least interested in this topic even if they don't comment!). I shall add a further contribution though, to keep things ticking over while Council cogitate.

Nothing extra about the issues at point (you'll probably be glad to hear!) but instead an opportunity for Members to see what they've been denied due to my paper not being accepted for JBAA publication. I originally constructed it in web-page form so all I need to do is give a link, and everyone will be able to browse the paper in its full glory. So - here's the link:-

Perturbations to the orbit of Ceres

Comments are most definitely invited (your chance to be a JBAA Papers Referee!).

Steve Holmes

After having read the "paper" in its web format I can see why the "powers that be" refused publication; it is basically an essay in orbital mechanics which I suspect has little appeal to the readership of the JBAA, being mostly interested in actual observations rather than in any amount of celestial mechanics avulse from said observations. I, for one, would be immediately skipping to the next article just on sight of the title.

By the way, the JBAA is not a "science" publication per se but just the journal of the BAA, an amateur organisation dedicated to astronomical observations by amateurs.

Andrea T.

An interesting post from Andrea, as it touches upon several of the points I have been making.

I find Andrea's description of my work, together with his subsequent use of the term "observations" rather revealing. While of course we all know that the only "real" astronomers are those brave souls who freeze to death at 2am while peering into their eyepieces, the science of astronomy is not, never has been and cannot in the future be solely about observations. As in any scientific endeavour, theory and practice must go hand-in-hand and so "computational astronomy" is just as valid as taking pictures of galaxies. Can one presume that if Messrs Copernicus and Kepler were to submit their work on planetary orbits to the JBAA their submissions would be rejected on the grounds that they were just "basically an essay in orbital mechanics"? We are, after all, the British Astronomical Association, with all that implies, not the British Astronomical Observations Society.

Following this train of thought through a little, may we assume that, as Andrea appears to believe the BAA should devote itself to observations and the reporting thereof, he would agree that many of the papers (and indeed other articles) currently published in the Journal have no right to be there? One would struggle to find much observational content in what I have called Historical and Biographical submissions, for example, so presumably they should have been omittted. One can't have it both ways. Several contributors have revelled in the range of items in the JBAA, reflecting the wide range of interests of its members (both observational and otherwise), and so do I. I simply wish to ensure that a clear and firm distinction is made between "papers" and "articles", as "paper" in the context of "Journal" has a special and widely recognised meaning which should not be distorted.

I now move on to Andrea's presumption that my paper would have little appeal to the readership of the JBAA, and certainly not to him. Three points to be made here. Firstly, I am not clear how he feels he can accurately judge whether a paper might be of interest or not: what sample of the membership is his comment based on? I have previously made the same remark concerning similar views expressed by referees. Secondly, it is of course his prerogative to be uninterested in my work. For my part, I have no interest whatsoever in the large number of papers by Boyd, Shears et al. I, like Andrea would with mine, quickly flick past them as soon as I come across them. Unlike Andrea, however, I do not consider this a valid reason not to include them in the JBAA. Indeed, they are exactly what the Journal should be publishing. Which leads me on to my third point. It is one I have already made several times but which seems not to be getting through so I fear I must repeat it again - "popularity" is absolutely not a criterion by which a scientific paper submitted to a Journal should be judged, so let's stop the preoccupation with the interests of the readership.

Lastly, the "By the way" paragraph. I feel I must point out that I did not refer to the JBAA as a science publication but rather as a "science-based" one - quite a difference. I have already remarked in another post about the word "amateur". We may be amateurs because we do not make a living from our hobby but I would fervently hope we all adopt a professional approach to it. Stressing the "amateur" aspect of the BAA is destructive in many ways, as it encourages amateur thinking (in the worst sense of the word) and gives the impression to others that this is all we are capable of. If we want to be seen as professional we must act as if we are, and that applies to JBAA papers as much as any other aspect of the Association.

Steve Holmes

I seem to remember (but I might be wrong on this count) that there is a specific bit in the Association charter that refers to it being "devoted to the pursuit of astronomical observations [by amateurs]" as well as remarks to that effect by some officers. If this is indeed the case then a paper such as the one being discussed here might find it difficult to be published, with some reason. While articles have been published that do not directly deal with astronomical observations I submit that:

1. AFAIK historical articles published refer to either astronomical observations done in the past or past observers or are in any way connected to astronomical observations.

2. Theoretical articles have been publised that deal with celestial mechanics in some form but they are related to the actual act of observation either in acta or in fieri.

As for the other points made as shall reply as follows:

a. I wrote "I suspect" I was implicitly airing my opinion about both the palability of such an article to the wider readership of the Journal, the composition thereof and the reason why the publication was refused. Again MY opinion. Something I thought was elicited by Steve's previous post.

b. As I (as well as all other members) pay for the pleasure (or the displeasure) of actually reading the Journal's contents I suspect that the "popularity" of articles to be submitted for publication would be very high on the editors' agenda. Just because a paper's content is scientific doesn't automatically grant the right to be published, I would expect.

c. While computational astronomy is certainly a fascinating subject I hold that it should find its way into the journal only whether is related to observations not as an area of interest per se.

d. I cannot find anything more ridicule that the snobbish attitude of always trying to show to measure up to what the "pros" are doing. Why should we (amateur astronomical observers) have to try to compare with the professionals is beyond me.

Andrea T.