[Article] Softcomputing in identification of V.M. by comparison with ancient dialects

[DonaldFisk]

That is correct. However, the authors never claimed that either. Rather, at the end of the article you can read :

"This is the beginning of this experimental work. Our goal is to collect as many alphabets of different languages and dialects as possible and to measure their similarity to determine at least the probable family of the language to which Voynich’s alphabet belongs."

That's not going to work.  There are plenty of closely related language pairs which have quite different scripts, e.g. Mandarin Chinese and Dungan; Hindi and Urdu; Polish and Russian; as well as plenty of completely unrelated languages which have very similar scripts, e.g. English, Hungarian, Turkish, Basque, Vietnamese, and Malay; Arabic and Urdu; Russian, Mongolian, and Dungan; Hebrew and Yiddish.

Also, Khojki script is an abugida, not an alphabet.   Voynichese (probably, ignoring the minor differences normally present in handwriting) doesn't have enough characters to be an abugida.

To do what they are attempting to do, they should be looking at the structure and meanings of words, and the structure of sentences.

[bi3mw]

Also, Khojki script is an abugida, not an alphabet.   Voynichese (probably, ignoring the minor differences normally present in handwriting) doesn't have enough characters to be an abugida.

I understood the difference between an abugida and a "real" alphabet as follows:

From Wikipedia

An abugida (/ɑːbʊˈɡiːdə, from Ge'ez: አቡጊዳ), sometimes known as alphasyllabary, neosyllabary or pseudo-alphabet, is a segmental writing system in which consonant–vowel sequences are written as units; each unit is based on a consonant letter, and vowel notation is secondary, like a diacritical mark. This contrasts with a full alphabet, in which vowels have status equal to consonants, and with an abjad, in which vowel marking is absent, partial, or optional – in less formal contexts, all three types of script may be termed "alphabets".

I would guess that within the team that wrote the article, Leah C. Windsor ( Bachelor of Science in Linguistics ) was most likely responsible for deciding whether or not an abugida was admissible for comparison. @rlozi ( René Lozi ) could forward the question to comment on this, but I think he is no longer active on the forum.