Koen G > 16-06-2019, 10:03 AM
-JKP- > 16-06-2019, 10:13 AM
ReneZ > 16-06-2019, 12:17 PM
Anton > 19-06-2019, 10:17 AM
Koen G > 14-07-2019, 08:28 PM
(14-07-2019, 08:13 PM)nablator Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Quote:Cheshire, the British scholar whose Voynich research was published by Romance Studies in May, waved off the new California competition after reviewing the summary in King’s paper.
“My paper passed blind peer-review with a reputable journal, as it was independently tested and passed by a panel of academics,” Cheshire said. “That is the gold standard for academics. The only reason why doubt was cast over it in the news is because there are many enthusiasts out there for whom the manuscript is their social outlet and pastime, so they didn’t want it solved and they launched a trolling campaign.”
bi3mw > 15-07-2019, 12:32 PM
(14-07-2019, 08:28 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.....
The only reason why doubt was cast over it in the news is because there are many enthusiasts out there for whom the manuscript is their social outlet and pastime, so they didn’t want it solved and they launched a trolling campaign.”
We launched a trolling campaign
Koen G > 15-07-2019, 01:56 PM
-JKP- > 16-07-2019, 01:56 AM
Koen G > 13-09-2019, 02:43 PM
Quote:Thank you for your query following up on this. Alongside the publisher, this paper and the concerns raised have been reviewed in line with the industry standards of the Committee on Publication Ethics. We found that there are many interpretations of the Voynich manuscript and that this paper offers one of them, so we have taken the decision that no further action is needed.
[font=Calibri, sans-serif]With very best wishes[/font]
[font=Calibri, sans-serif]Lloyd Davies[/font]
[font=Calibri, sans-serif]Editor[/font]
[font=Calibri, sans-serif]Romance Studies[/font]