The Voynich Manuscript: Understanding the Untranslatable with Lisa Fagin Davis

[asteckley]

Andre, you write that I should "criticize claims with an aim to clarify the evidence and move the understanding forward" and that I do so "without offering any new evidence or new reasoning."

Several of the issues I raise are not open questions...

It is not about the technical accuracy of what you say in your posts; it is about the how, and when, and why of them. Most of your detailed statements are true, some are not. It still comes across that your main aim is more to make a targeted attack rather than a "scholarly" response. (You know full well, for example, the many reasons why Davis holds a fairly common opinion that it seems to be Indo-European. Your response of asking for the published source was not because it was the scholarly thing to do.)

As for the references in my 2024 paper, your paper from 2020 (I am not aware of any 2014 one in Cryptologia) was omitted because it was no more relevant than many other publications addressing the same general topic.  (References are not meant to be a literature survey -- not unless that is the specific purpose of the paper itself.)  You were also omitted because of where you published. That is a risk you take when you choose to publish your work in a journal that restricts its articles behind an unreasonable paywall. Unless such a paper offers high value and a unique relevance, I don't cite it.

Citation choices in scholarship are never neutral — they show whom one acknowledges as a participant in the conversation and whom one excludes. 

 
Now those words may be more revealing of your motivations than anything else you've said. Are you concerned with the subject matter, or are you just offended that your work isn't getting accepted enough by certain people in the community?