[Conference] Voynich conference!

[Mark Knowles]

Having submitted a paper myself, I can attest to the professionalism of the reviewers. Initially I was skeptical (who can review papers about Voynich imagery without letting some bias shine through?), but most of their comments made sense. They made us rewrite a lot - Cary and I had to work hard to rewrite almost our entire paper - but the result is that it got better. So from my own experience, I can assure you that the review process was taken very seriously. Of course, reviewers are human beings with human flaws, but this applies to any peer review process in any field.

With a range of subjects like this, I also don't understand why one would find it too one-sided. Claire Bowern will provide arguments both in favor and against "nonsense text". And one of the speakers is Claus Schmeh, who (if I recall correctly) favors Torsten's views on the text. The implication that only speakers of one 'school of thought' would be permitted is absurd.

My impression is that Torsten Timm is an able and respected researcher and I would guess he or an associate of his had a paper rejected which he feels was unfair. I haven't read the paper, so I can't comment on it, but it is unfortunate that he feels that way.