Writing papers about the Voynich MS

[Alin_J]

I've seen some pretty ugly behavior in academic circles.

I have seen some pretty nasty stuff too. I will however not discuss them here, I need some peace of mind...

Based on experience, I have become suspicious of almost everything I read, which is why I usually read every word to make sure it's coherent and cohesive and follows logical premises.

This is a very good and healthy philosophy. Stick with it.

To me the methodology is the most important part. Regardless of the citations, regardless of the conclusions (which can be wrong even if the methodology is good), if the methodology is good there is probably some value in the paper and you don't necessarily have to accept the conclusion (which is often a subjective interpretation of the results). If the methodology is good and well described, you can try to replicate or use the results.

I agree on this. I have read academic papers (concerning other subjects than VM) published in well-reputed high Impact-Factor journals which lacked good description of methodology necessary to repeat the experiments. The problem with those journals and their editors is that they sometimes seem to make go of this requirement if they feel they could publish a paper with good potential to be cited often (mainly due to the significance of the results), and this does not always jibe with a flawless methodology. They do this just to maintain, or increase their citation counts (which supposedly is seen as an indicator of the prestige/quality of the journal, but I think the importance of this indicator is vastly over-rated).