J. Janick interpretations of the VMS...

[ReneZ]

The original publication was in a journal ('Herbalgram') which I presume is peer-reviewed.

From their You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.:

[deleted]

How could this journal peer-review a historic comparison of medievalia? It's a modern day botanic journal, they have zero expertise in this field.

David, don't take this personally. You could be right. But your response exactly hits the problem that I see.
They should have this expertise and probably do.
How can we judge / who are you to judge?
They should (would) have asked for review by people with relevant expertise.

[davidjackson]

I'm sorry Rene, but their expertise lies in a different field, and this is outlined in their "article submission" for the magazine.

We focus mainly on medicinal plant research, regulatory issues, market conditions, native plant conservation, and other general interest aspects of herb use.
[..]
All articles published in HerbalGram are peer reviewed by leading authorities in the field of phytopharmaceutical research, including
•
James A. Duke, Ph.D., U.S. Department of Agriculture, retired;
•
Norman Farnsworth, Ph.D., Professor of Pharmacognosy, University of Illinois Medical School;
•
Michael Balick, Ph.D., Director of the Institute of Economic Botany, the New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, New York.

(emphasis mine)


I have no doubt that the article was peer-reviewed within their areas of expertise in a correct fashion. But they cannot expected to be able to peer-review the medieval aspects of the article, for this is a field completely outside the scope of the journal.

Plant identification within the manuscript would in any case fall less in the field of modern botany and more in the field of history of art, as they are very subjective.

[ReneZ]

David, I see you did not get my point.

I know you are right. I know that their New World theory must be wrong.
The point is: "says who?"

[davidjackson]

10,000 outraged nerds on the internet?