Hello Roy...

The definition of a committee is a dark alley down which you lead ideas
so that you can strangle them. My impression is that the QST editorial
process is riddled with committees, and they're quite effective (hi).

I've given up writing for them due to the many problems you recounted -
I don't say forever, but for the time being. I'm very tired of
objections that don't make any real sense, while seeing this kind of
article (which also makes no real sense) published as is.

QST used to be a respected technical journal. It's grown inbred,
inflexible, inaccurate and inconsistent. It no longer really serves the
amateur community - it seems to largely serve itself.

Maybe a (metaphorical) bomb will go off or someone will start a
revolution and it'll change. Not likely, but maybe.

Perhaps a group of (former) writers could prepare a joint "declaration
of limited support" to present directly to the ARRL brass (bypassing the
editors) to call for action/changes.

Nice to run into you here.

Best regards - Robert Victor VA2ERY




Roy Lewallen wrote:
QST editors can't be expected to be experts on all the topics they have
to deal with. Over the years, they've dealt with the problem in various
ways. One was to establish a pool of "Technical Advisors" -- volunteers
who had particular expertise in various areas. Some manuscripts being
considered for publication were sent to the appropriate TAs for comments
and review. This practice slowly died out, but I don't know why. I
suspect it was because the editors seldom had the time for this step in
the process due to erratic scheduling.

Eventually, they adopted a solution which was easy on the editors and
their schedules: post the proposed articles to a restricted web site
where the TAs could review them and leave comments. This saved the time
of communicating with individual TAs, and made it unnecessary to wait
for a response --

Roy Lewallen, W7EL