Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
A very good point Jeremy, which I put to Roger to ask for his comments. He said that when he discovered the problem with the 6×30 finder (which was simply the one supplied with his telescope rather than a deliberate purchase) he did indeed consider getting a 9×50 but, as he already had the old webcam and other “bits & pieces” from earlier projects, he decided to give the “electronic” option a go first. It was really only when he discovered that the prototype device worked so well, and that it might be able to be manufactured for a price comparable to that of a 9×50, that he began to think about whether it could be commercially produced.
While the webcam finderscope and a 9×50 will have about the same sort of performance (in terms of FoV and sensitivity), the electronic option does have a number of significant advantages over its optical cousin, which I noted in my very first post:-
1) The view seen through an electronic finder can be easily manipulated, both mechanically and by use of the driver program, to align it with that given by whatever star map or program one is using to define the hopping sequence. This includes the ability to “flip” the image in two axes as well as rotate it, something which is impossible to achieve optically without the use of additional lenses or prisms. It should be noted that, as Roger pointed out, the image in an optical finder is inherently “upside down” but the orientation changes if, for example, a diagonal prism is in use, all of which can be confusing for a beginner. The ability to easily alter the image orientation avoids these sorts of issues.
2) An electronic finder provides the observer with a much more convenient “operating environment”. Even a diagonal prism cannot always avoid the need for a most un-natural stance to be adopted in order to look through the eyepiece of a finder. Viewing the scene on a screen removes this problem.
3) Use of a camera enables the observer to take images during the hopping sequence, which can be useful for analysis after the event (particularly if the sequence went astray somewhere) and to document the sequence, perhaps to teach someone else how to carry out the same operation.
4) Driver software could enable the viewed image to be processed “on the fly” in order to improve the image quality and hence the effective sensitivity, which might permit objects at the limit of detectability to be seen.
Roger also noted that he had tried a 9×50 and found that although the performance was indeed a little better than a 6×30 it was not significantly so. While less bright stars could be seen, the difference was small and the FoV was 1 or 2 deg. less than achieved by his device. In addition, the 9×50 was much heavier which required extra weight to be added to the OTA counter-weight in order to maintain its balance.
All the above persuaded Roger that the device he has created would be of considerable benefit to a less-experienced observer, hence his request that I begin this post.
Sorry Grant but you do seem to be persistently mis-understanding (or mis-construing) many of the points being made here. As I clearly said in the text of my post, the image I attached was chosen mainly to prove that the “electronic finderscope” did indeed have a uniform, undistorted, FoV of around 6 degrees – twelve times greater than that of the set-up you mention and therefore of much geater use as a finder – not to illustrate that it could capture 2nd magnitude stars. In fact, by looking only a little more carefully at the image (helped perhaps by an expansion of the page in the browser), one can clearly make out very much fainter stars – down to at least 8th magnitude in fact, as claimed in the post. I admit that the need to reduce the image for convenient display in the post has made this slightly less convenient so here’s a larger view of just the bottom-left corner which has been enhanced so as to make things even easier.
As you will be able to confirm, the star visible towards the edge of the frame 45deg down and left of Merak is magnitude 8.38, that to Merak’s right (just below the cross-hair) is mag. 7.94, and there are several more stars visible of somewhat greater brightness. This number of stars of that range of magnitudes in a FoV of this size makes it very easy for an almost real-time assessment of the direction of view to be made by comparison with whatever star chart or program one is using to carry out the hopping process. This ease of “manual plate solving”, if you will, makes consulting astrometry.net entirely un-necessary.
And don’t forget that this is just the image through the finder. Once the target (or the field in which the target is known to sit, for very faint objects) has been located and centred in the wide FoV of the finder, attention can turn to the greater light-gathering power and magnification (but also very narrow FoV) of the main instrument in order to make observations. This is far simpler and much faster than carrying out both the alignment and observation operations through the main instrument, especially for a beginner for whom, as I must seemingly keep on reminding everyone, this device is intended.
And so you shall Grant! But firstly, herewith some responses and information from Roger on the comments in your previous post.
I will of course accept your statement that an “uncooled Lodestar” will get down to mag. 12/13. However …. you didn’t say which Lodestar you had in mind but the cheapest device with “Lodestar” in its title which Google could find me was a second-hand Starlight Xpress Lodestar Usb2 Mono St4 Guide Camera (catchy title!) on eBay for £245. Next best was £469 and then it got silly. As mentioned in connection with the similar suggestions from Jeremy, Tim & Andy, even £245 is probably a good percentage of what a beginner might have paid for their entire set-up so a device of this sort is not going to be high on their “must buy” list. The same is true for tripods of course. An EQ6 is no doubt a fine piece of kit, but with a price running potentially into 4 figures it’s not really a budget offering! When one is working with more basic, less highly specified, equipment and a desire to be more frugal, different solutions are needed.
So, to cut to the chase, of what does Roger’s finder consist? Camera first. It’s actually a ZWO ASI 034MC webcam, “bought used on eBay some years ago for £30” and obsolete now, of course. This is mounted at the eyepiece end of a basic 6×30 optical finder by use of an array of metalwork and adapters, including an internal focus tube using a webcam lens bought from China to allow the ZWO to image afocally. Total cost? Less than £50. Clearly neither practical nor desirable to make an exact copy were it to be manufactured, but Roger estimates that a “proper” version could be made for £100 all in and ready to mount & use.
Now performance. Its field of view is in excess of 6 degrees and stars down to at least mag. 8 can be clearly imaged with even field illumination and very little distortion. Just right for visual identification of direction of view when star-hopping in fact, obviating the need for potentially troublesome plate solving and therefore for an accurately adjusted and calibrated tripod.
And finally a picture. Please bear in mid that this is a test image taken when the device was undergoing development, so it is neither quite centred nor in the correct orientation (needs rotation by 105 degrees anti-clockwise for “sky equivalence”). Roger hasn’t needed to take any such images when using the finalised version for actual observations, as it works so well, so I can’t post any. But this one is an unprocessed single frame, exactly as taken – just reduced in size for ease of posting.
This image has been chosen to show that the FoV is indeed around 6 degrees – the brightest stars are Merak (left) and Dubhe (right) which are separated by 5 deg 22.43 min. It can be seen that the star images are circular right to the edge of the frame and free of false colour, and there is uniform field brightness.
A pretty useful piece of kit, I would say, and at a potentially very attractive price. Any budding entrepreneur care to change their mind as to manufacturing possibilities before it’s snapped up by the PRC?
Thanks for your further contribution Grant, and apologies for not responding sooner. I had to communicate with Roger again to find some of the information you requested, and unfortunately he has not been feeling well today so things have been delayed. I’ll get back to you as soon as I can.
Certainly an interesting take on the theme, but it seems to require one to have a smartphone of some sort (which not everyone has, you might be surprised to hear!) but maybe a tablet would work as well? Also, there would appear to be some problems with it yet so maybe not something to take up immediately.
It is, however, encouraging to hear someone else saying that beginners often have problems with star-hopping! Not sure this is the solution, but at least the problem is recognised. Not so sure about the excursion into “plate solving” in the later posts though, as this again fails to recognise that, as the original poster says, the fundamental problem here is obtaining good enough images with basic hardware for plate solving to find a solution – exactly the issue Roger was trying to address.
Sorry Xilman – my comment about using Uranometria was just a joke! (replying to the mention of same by Grant Privett in his earlier post). Thanks for offering the info. on star charts though.
A really great bit of lateral thinking there Grant, but I feel it doesn’t really move us forward. I’m sure that an 85mm reflector would indeed give a better image than a small refractor finder but the practical difficulties of mounting, and probably counter-weighting, such an item on the OTA of the sort of slightly up-market but still essentially “consumer” reflector a keen beginner is likely to be using (something like a Skywatcher 150?) hardly bear thinking about. Then of course, as the 85mm will almost certainly have been intended to be used as a “proper” (if small!) telescope rather than a finder, there is the question of FoV to consider. One might even have to mount a finder on it!! (and round we go again). As for “blobby coloured images”, I can assure you that those produced by Roger’s device are nicely round and white, right to the edge of the field. [P.S. I sincerely hope you didn’t mean “85mm refractor“, by the way – available, but not exactly at the budget end of the market!]
We did consider using Uranometria as a guide to star hopping, but I’m afraid the Bodleian didn’t seem keen to lend out their copy ….
Moving on to your second post Grant, I knew that Roger had mentioned “plate solving” so I checked back with him and he confirmed that, to put it succinctly, “been there, done that, didn’t get the T-shirt”. There were two basic problems. Firstly, astrometry.net rarely came up with a solution, even “after the event” let alone “live”, probably due to having captured an insufficient number of stars. Then, even if it had found a solution, the instruction to move X in RA and Y in Dec. does rather assume that these axes are correctly aligned and that the relevant setting circles are accurately calibrated and with a fine enough resolution and lack of back-lash to permit an accurate move. With a beginner’s telescope which has to be heaved outside and set up each time an observation is attempted, neither of these constraints is likely to be true. If they were, one could of course simply use the setting circles to point directly at the target of interest without having to go through the star-hopping process. As mentioned earlier, not such a problem with permanent installations but a frequent problem with beginners’ set-ups.
In Roger’s case, the reason he was needing to visually identify exactly where he had got to in the sky after each “slew” between target stars was precisely because he was aware that, although he had taken care to ensure that his equatorial was set up as accurately as possible and that he had turned the dials as precisely as he could, he was aware that the setup was usually just slightly “out” which meant that the end-point was often not quite where it was intended to be. This error could easily be corrected if only he could see sufficient stars to get a “fix” – not possible due to the small FoV of the main instrument and not possible through the optical finder due to low sensitivity. Hence the need for a wide FoV, high sensitivity, “electronic” finder.
And yes, “eyeballing” will certainly give a good starting point but what then? Looking along the tube will give an approximate aiming point but, assuming the target is invisible both to the naked eye and to the (optical) finder, this could be some distance away from the intended aiming point. Even if it’s fairly close, unless you know exactly where the telescope is pointing there is no way to know in which direction to move, let alone how far. As above, relying on the RA & Dec. circles may not be helpful, and “random search” (taking images each time through the main instrument) is unlikely to be effective for faint objects.
I suppose a summary of many of the points I have made in all the posts is “Welcome to the world of the beginner”! Everyone has to start somewhere, and that somewhere can be well down the scale of instrument sophistication. Beginners often have problems which “professional amateurs” don’t even think of, which can lead to blindness as to reasonable ways to solve those problems.
Thanks for your input Andy. The item you mention is pretty close to Roger’s idea but in fact the “Altair MG32 Mini Guide Polar Alignment Scope + QRB Rings + GPCAM Guide Camera” (phew!) seems to be a closer match – no (un-necessary) focuser and a sensible size objective lens. However, the cameras on both of these are only mono (presumably a colour one would cost rather more) and there’s no mention of FoV – but as they are specified to be mainly for guiding purposes one must assume that this could be quite narrow. And then there’s the price of course (£275 for the Altair!) when a basic, beginner level, optical finder can be bought for £35 (Rother Valley). Note that I’m not suggesting that the build quality of these two would be anything close to the same, simply that there doesn’t seem to be anything available for a beginner.
The Celestron and Meade devices do indeed seem to work only with their own products – and pretty beefy ones at that, judging by the Meade pictures! I suspect that in these cases if one has to ask the price then one can’t afford it!
Sorry about the apparent emphasis on price, but this is a factor which should not be overlooked if beginners are to be encouraged to move onto slightly more complicated observations than simply looking at the larger planets. Finding Uranus, Neptune and the brighter galaxies (for example) with only an optical finder on a standard “consumer” 150mm reflector, for example, can be very difficult – particularly for someone with little experience. Adding an “electronic finder”, a bit of technology and a star-hopping plan makes things so much easier! Not everyone has large aperture OTAs on motorised, permanently mounted, perfectly adjusted GOTO drives, I’m afraid.
All offers to manufacture gratefully received!
Yes, the “assemble available components” route is the one Roger hoped he could go down. As I suspect Robin also found though, given his use of Meccano & Jubilee clips, the solution to the problem turned out not to be that simple, particularly in the case of obtaining a wide FoV. He thus had to engage in some creative engineering metalwork (and a crash course in silver soldering!) in order to make everything (literally!) come together.
Given the lack of immediate responses saying “oh yes, I got one of those ages ago”, it would seem there is indeed no commercially available unit of this specification available, which answers the first part of Roger’s query which I posed in my original post. As to the second part, while he is sure that such a unit would be of great benefit to the beginner, the fact that constructing one is not straightforward leads him to suspect that, now he has (he believes) come up with a workable solution, it is only really a commercial manufacturing process which would be able to build them to a reasonable standard in reasonable numbers. Hence his appeal to members who might have contacts with such an enterprise (or possibly a hot line to BBC’s “Dragons’ Den”!). Anyone able to help?
Thanks for those comments. However, between them they do rather illustrate the problems with “standard” solutions which my friend Roger was trying to solve. In the case of the Evoguide 50ED plus ZWO camera bundle, the most obvious objection is cost! (£319, even as a “special offer”). While I’m sure there must be a market for such a device at this price point among “professional amateurs”, I rather doubt whether many casual backgarden skywatchers would be willing to invest this amount, possibly more than their entire setup has cost them so far, in order to obtain one. This is further compounded by the fact that this device does not seem to be able to make up its mind as to what it is. For example, a “webcam finderscope” does not need the ability to accept different cameras/eyepieces nor does it need to be able to alter the focus: once the selected webcam is in the correct position it should not need to be altered or adjusted thereafter. Also, does a finder for a “moderate” telescope really need a 50mm “Ohara ED doublet objective that includes an S-FPL53 ED glass element”? All these additions can only serve to increase the price. The fact that this item does not seem to be intended purely as a finder is to some extent borne out by the reviews, which refer to its use as a astrophotography camera in its own right. Irony of ironies, one review even mentions the need for a finder to be mounted on it! Which brings me to the next disadvantage of both the Evoguide setup and adapter rings – limited field-of-view.
The FirstLightOptics page for just the guider has an “applet” for determining the FoV of various setups, which shows that the Evo plus ZWO camera bundle can span from M32 to M110 – barely 1 degree. This again would tend to confirm that it is not really suitable purely as a finder for a moderate OTA. Adapter rings tend to have the same problem: Roger’s setup can achieve an FoV of over 6 degrees, which is much more usable for star hopping. Finally, although Robin’s setup is much nearer to Roger’s, he himself says that the webcam he used is not sufficiently sensitive, thus emphasising the need for careful selection of components.
In summary then, although there are products out there which address the same “operational space”, there does not seem to be anything currently on the market which combines high sensitivity, very wide fov, and modest cost – unless someone knows differently, that is!
In response to the recent comments by Robin and Jeremy, please note that I have not suggested that the Members’ pages should be a database or archive of observations – I merely observed that some members seem to be using the pages in this fashion (by posting quite old observations – see post #6 from David Basey and my reply as post #7).
I would also remark that whereas Robin feels that the Members’ pages should be an “electronic pin board for members to put up what they like, when they like” this is clearly not the view of the webmaster, who told me that the idea was for the pages to be a “rolling diary” (private email, received 8th Jan) – quite a different beast. If a pin-board really was the original idea then I would suggest that the way the content of the pages is currently displayed in no way reflects this intention, because the default index by submission date can excessively separate the various postings. More suitable to have them all simply “tiled”, I would have thought (as per the result of doing a Search by category), as this would better reflect the essentially random nature of a pin-board. The current arrangement quite clearly assumes that the pages are intended to be a chronological record of observations. Until the contradiction between these two views is resolved I fear the pages will not effectively serve their intended purpose (whatever that is!).
SteveH
It seems that the resolution of David’s points 1. and 2. above is really tied up with point 3. I would agree that it is not explicitly stated that this section is intended as a showcase for current observations, but this is what webmaster Dominic told me when I first tackled him on the subject. If this principle is to be strictly observed then it does indeed need to be made very much clearer, but in this case the logic of my suggestion that submissions be indexed by date of observation is surely unanswerable: the most recent observations appear at the top of the listing and the rest appear in chronological order of observation irrespective of when they were submitted.
There might be an argument for indexing by date of submission if the section is intended to be merely a repository of work, to enable those viewing to easily see the latest posts – as David wants to do. This does seem to be contrary to the current (though undocumented!) intention for the section however.
I feel that we now need a firm statement from whoever decided that this section should be set up in the first place, to clarify how it is intended to be used. Only then can a logical system of indexing be agreed upon. Over to you, Council Members?
SteveH
David Basey’s point about “old” observations cropped up in my discussion with Dominic, who said that the Members’ Pages section was purely intended to showcase current observations, not to act as an archive of past work. To have new posts of old observations at the head of a member’s images list (as they are at the moment) thus contravenes the basic premise: much better to have them in their correct chronological order, I would have thought. In fact, David contradicts himself in his post, as he says he wants to see “those observations that are new” but then mentions the difficulty in finding submissions of old observations if the images are in order of observation. I think we need to be clear here: a new posting of an old observation is not a new observation, and therefore should not be deemed “current work”. Indexing by date of observation allows easy access to genuinely new work; permits a member to construct an archive of work if that is what they wish, and allows images of the same observation submitted at different times to be seen together. I really cannot see any downsides!
SteveH
Interested to read the comment from David Dunn, as I have recently tackled the Webmaster (Dominic) on what could be exactly the same request! The comment is ambiguous though as it doesn’t make it clear whether he means sort the entire members’ area or just the submissions of one member – as Jeremy points out, sorting the entire area is already possible. My comment to Dominic concerned just one member, as I pointed out that, currently, unless all the images of one observation were uploaded on precisely the same day they could not be seen together, as would seem desirable. My suggestion of “sort by subject” was rejected and my alternative suggestion that the default sort should be by date of observation rather than date of submission has yet to receive a reply, despite sending a reminder. As I pointed out, sort by date of observation would make scarcely any difference to the desire to keep the members’ area as an ongoing diary of current observations but, critically, would automatically group together images of the same observation uploaded on different days (maybe because some required extra processing). Any support for this idea?
SteveH
I am delighted to hear that Tony agrees with me that the Journal should include “constructive Letters on Papers”! Good to know that I have some support at least. Question is, how do we go about making this happen? As mentioned in my reply to Grant, the interim solution of a section in the Forum is problematic but would at least keep the topic alive, and if there was agreement that any final conclusions (or perhaps unresolved issues) would then be published in the Journal we might have an acceptable compromise.
Further comments, anyone?
In reply to Grant, this is not the first time I have been advised to stand for Council! While superficially a good idea, the suggestion does have a host of practical problems standing in the way of actually getting anything done:-
1) While I may be able to get nominated, getting elected would be quite another matter. That small percentage of the Association who actually vote would no doubt tend to prefer a “famous name” who they know has done good work in the past rather than an unknown who is essentially standing on a single issue.
2) Even if by some miracle I were to get elected, I would then have to get the issues of interest on the Agenda, have them debated, and win any subsequent vote. At the last count, there were 36 members of Council so I would need to persuade another 18 of them to agree with me – a difficult task, I fear!
3) The next Council elections are not until October 2017, so the earliest that this matter could be debated would be at least a year away – not really what I was looking for.
Writing a paper is also problematic. The most obvious objection is the one I have already made in the original version of this thread – the time delay. And of course the acceptance of a paper is subject to the same sort of editorial whim that I am commenting on! (as I became very aware of when I submitted a paper of my own some years ago). Also, before one can “correct the error” one has to know that an error has been committed. A simple factual error may be obvious (but is a paper the best way to correct it?) but if there is a possible error of analysis (as I suggested in the case of the eclipse-contact paper) then one would have to have access to the original data to determine this if one is not allowed to submit a comment like the one I had rejected. Starting a thread has (as previously mentioned by me) the objection that only BAA members are likely to see it, and – most importantly – any conclusions reached. The whole point of peer review is that corrections to papers are published in the same Journal as the original paper – would the Editorial team agree to this, one wonders?
Finally, I am not suggesting that anything and everything is published. There must clearly still be a degree of control to avoid the mis-use alluded to by Grant, but this must be strictly editorial: concepts such as “of interest to the Editor” have no place in a learned journal.
Hi Robin,
I did not in fact attempt to contact the original author as I did not feel that this was the appropriate way to comment on his paper (see my earlier posts!). However, discussion with the original author could indeed a viable option within a somewhat looser commenting structure, but does require that he/she is contactable at the same address after maybe over a year, is willing to engage in discussion, and is amenable to publishing a correction should this become necessary. Assuming all this is possible, direct contact is perhaps on a par with discussion in the Forum, lacking the wider view of other members but (hopefully) gaining from the author’s insights. A combination of the two is perhaps the best solution if actual publishing is not to be used but does, as you say, risk a protracted discussion.
Indeed, direct contact is what I felt the inadequate responses I had received from the Editor forced me to do when I wished to comment on a later JBAA paper by Jean Meeus. My remarks were met with Jean’s usual courtesy, and he graciously agreed that some phrases he used could have been worded slightly differently to make his points more accurately. However, it is most unlikely that he would be keen to publish these minor corrections himself and of course if I were to do so my contribution would have to surmount the hurdle of being “of interest to the Editor”. While this is of no great import in this particular case, if a significant deficiency was identified in a paper but was unable to be fed back into print then the consequences could be more serious.
I therefore feel (and it seems you do too) that, whatever the means used to facilitate the discussion, there is a need for a mechanism by which comments on papers (whether by the original author or not) can be freely published in the Journal. If not in the Letters section, then where? I was certainly not suggesting that ArXiv be used, as that would throw up all sorts of problems of its own, but maybe the Journal should permit of a contribution which is part-way between a Paper and a Letter? i.e. something which is only lightly refereed, maybe just by the Papers Editor (allowing it to be quickly published), and does not have to fulfil any particular “interest” criteria – its interest being inherent in the fact that it is a comment or correction on an already-published paper.
Are we heading in the right direction here, do you think?
Regards,
Steve
Hi Robin,
While I would agree with you that the submission of a further paper would be the correct (and usual) course of action if one wanted to publicise an alternative theory, the most obvious problem here is one of time-delay. It is not unusual for there to be an interval of a year between the submission of a paper to the JBAA and its publication, by which time most readers will have forgotten what the original paper was about anyway! I can’t say whether this is typical of other learned Journals, but even in their case the adoption of “pre-publication” revelation has proved a necessary part of the review process – the “arXiv” server being the prime example. While a delay of this magnitude might be acceptable for theories involving fundamental issues, I do think a faster process is needed for the sort of papers published in the JBAA. Bi-monthly Letters are certainly not perfect in this respect, but they are definitely better than annual papers!
The above of course assumes that one wishes to put forward an alternative theory, rather than simply comment on certain aspects of the original paper (as I was). These comments may not invalidate the original conclusions, but need to be addressed before a fully-robust position can be reached. In this case, a formal paper is almost certainly inappropriate and so the responder needs a means of putting his or her ideas forward in a different way. Currently, the Letters section is the only vehicle available for this and so it must be made clear whether such submissions are (or are not) acceptable as Letters – and if they are not, how they are to be published must also be made clear.
Discussion via the BAA Forum can, as you say, help to clarify ideas (assuming this is required). However, it suffers not only from the problems alluded to in my previous post, but (like any forum) can also result in “off-topic” comments and somewhat random trains of thought. It will also only reach those who are dedicated “Forum watchers” whereas a published comment will place itself before the eyes of the entire membership – few may read it, but at least it will clearly announce its presence. Furthermore, even if the Forum reaches a consensus conclusion on the ideas being put forward, how is this to be reflected back into the JBAA as a counter to the original article? Presumably as a Letter, at which point the discussion might well start all over again!
Regards,
Steve
In answer to Robin’s question, “No, I don’t”. One has to be careful to distinguish between a comment (i.e. a response to the paper) and the groundrules defining how the comment can be made. The issues I am raising refer to the groundrules – once these are defined one can then move on to formulating the comments themselves.
There would appear to be a sub-text inherent in Robin’s remark however – that the Forum would be a better place to discuss papers than the Journal. In this I would fundamentally disagree with him. The protocol for writing, submitting, refereeing and reviewing “learned papers” is well-established throughout the scientific community, and proceeds by the open publication of the paper and its comments in the relevant Journal. By doing so, a reader of the original paper can readily access all parts of any subsequent discussion, and the final conclusion, and thus be sure that the information given in the paper is accurate and reliable (or not, as the case may be). A Forum discussion, on the other hand, is a transitory thing with no firm link to the original paper and so a later reader may not be aware that a discussion has even occurred, let alone what the final judgement on the paper was. It must also be born in mind that the reader may not be a member of the BAA and so even if they think to consult the Forum they probably will not be able to join in the discussion, as this requires a log-on to be established. The only way in which the Forum scores over formal publication is “turn-round time”, but even so this may not be an actual advantage as knowing that there will be a delay before your response is published should encourage a contributor to do the research and carefully think through their submission rather than just bash off a quick reply.
Regards,
Steve
Dear Jeremy,
I of course realise that not all Letters can be published – it’s the way those to be published and those to be rejected are decided that I am questioning.
My first point was that surely the interests of the membership should be a deciding factor, not those of the Editor – this can lead to rejection for purely arbitrary reasons.
Secondly, I would have thought that a comment on a published JBAA paper deserves to be seen by the membership, in order to justify the Journal’s (presumed) desire to see itself as a peer-reviewed vehicle. If the comment turns out to be fallacious or mis-construed, then it is up to the membership to say so by means of a further contribution. That is what peer-review is all about!
And lastly, why could I (and presumably other contributors) not have been given more information about the reason for rejection? If one doesn’t know why a contribution has been rejected how can one ever submit with confidence? Is not the Editor supposed to encourage and advise contributors rather than frustrate them?
Best regards,
Steve
