[split] Voynich 2026 Conference QUESTIONS/COMMENTS

[BessAgritianin]

"Note:  Proposed "solutions" will not be accepted."
 If the proposed solutions are not accepted, then what is the purpose of the conference?

This policy actually says :"We want to study the Voynich Manuscript, but we do not actually want anyone to solve it."
It protects the status quo and ensures that the mystery will continue indefinitely.
 Refer my thread:  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
  Isn't it time on testing evidence, not just maintaining the mystery?

[Zauriek]

 If the proposed solutions are not accepted, then what is the purpose of the conference?

I think is due the time frame, reviewing each abstract and then reviewing each "solution to the voynich" could take years on its own. So, they are curating the most scientific-like and solid arguments to be in time to the conference. 

The AI slop is a real problem too.

[Koen G]

"Solutions" is a specific phenomenon in Voynich research. They are not saying they don't want to see the manuscript solved. They just don't want any submissions belonging to the genre "solutions", which are basically creative writing exercises. This is absolutely the right call.

[rikforto]

I would add that there has been a good deal of good work that aren't immediate solutions over the years. The hope is always that such findings will be a stepping stone towards a solution, of course, but just because it isn't a solution doesn't mean it is "maintaining the mystery".

[sōlstəs]

"Solutions" is a specific phenomenon in Voynich research. They are not saying they don't want to see the manuscript solved. They just don't want any submissions belonging to the genre "solutions", which are basically creative writing exercises. This is absolutely the right call.

  That is truly the right call and understandable. Since we cannot agree on simple things on this forum, how shall we recognize a solution anyway? But this rule here, is the best decision, the orga team could made up:

"AI Policy

1. The use of generative AI to write any part of an article’s text or notes or to generate ideas is strictly prohibited
   
2. AI cannot be considered an author of submitted works, as AI tools cannot take ethical or legal responsibility for their output or enter into legal agreements
   
3. If prohibited AI use is discovered, even after an article has been accepted, the article will not be published and the offence will be treated as plagiarism
   
4. Authors must fully disclose and cite their use of any content created by AI tools in their manuscripts at the time of submission.  This includes data, images, figures, or any other type of content
   
5. Authors must accept full responsibility for accuracy, originality, and citation of content created using generative AI systems, including factual and citation accuracy
   
6. Hi Software that assists with grammar, spelling, or translation of your own words is not considered generative AI and doesn’t require disclosure."
   

And for that, I am really excited now and as well looking forward to the keynote speakers regarding this agenda topic:
"Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning techniques applied to the Voynich Manuscript", of course done and presented without any use of AI. To anybody that can deliver here, your are allready my king or queen. What a quest.

But I love the other topics too. This conference will set some new standards in science. Can't wait to learn more about: 

" - History of the Voynich Manuscript (historical approaches, ciphers). 
  - Natural Language Processing techniques applied to the Voynich Manuscript.
  - Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning techniques applied to the Voynich Manuscript.
  - Image Processing of the Voynich Manuscript folios.
  - Works around whether or not it is a hoax, a natural language, or enciphered.
  - Works that draw on methods from Digital Humanities.

Thank you all for organizing such a wonderful event. Keep on going, it is not easy to check so many research papers for quality and organize all of this. I hope the guest register link will be provided soon. And a full agenda of course. 

@Koen: Congratulations. I just noticed that you got a call as new Programme Committee Member for this conference. What is your role there? Are you a jury member or a key note speaker? 

[Koen G]

@Koen: Congratulations. I just noticed that you got a call as new Programme Committee Member for this conference. What is your role there? Are you a jury member or a key note speaker?

Thanks! Just jury for me, I haven't had to do anything yet 

A word of warning in this regard; several members of the committee (not just me) are reading the forum, and the reviewing is supposed to be double blind: abstract submissions must be completely anonymized. So for those who submitted a paper, it is best not to advertise it in advance. 

I know of one paper's author and subject, but this luckily does not affect me: there are many members on the committee who are better positioned to review computation-heavy submissions.

Another point I want to make clear in advance is that members of the committee will not get to judge their own papers, obviously. So if I (or Rene, Claire...)  were to submit a paper, it would be passed on anonymously to three uninvolved reviewers.

[sōlstəs]

I hope that all of the Committee Members are reading this forum.   This is the only recommanded place where researchers can come officially together for quality discussion. And good luck for all who will present their papers there. When will we get an updated agenda? Tomorrow, when the deadline of submission has passed away?

[Koen G]

Last time, the programme was only announced a few weeks before the conference. First, abstracts need to be vetted. Then, full papers need to be reviewed, possibly rewritten, possibly rejected... All these things required time, and the final set of papers to be presented will look different from the initially approved abstracts.

[ReneZ]

I haven't had to do anything yet 

Famous last words....

[Aga Tentakulus]

Perhaps I should post a thread explaining why I know better.
1: I’ve already discussed every topic five times.
2: People are too lazy to read, so they don’t know what happened in 1–4.
3: Ergo, logic dictates that I must know better.

Ego? No, maths!