Posted by Andrea Tasselli at 16:51 on 2012 Aug 23
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.