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 -- if comments weren't there by the deadline, too bad.
What I saw as one problem with this approach was that comments and
analyses were regularly being made by TAs whose appointments had nothing
at all to do with the subject matter. As an example (not representing
any actual particular occurrence), a TA whose expertise was, say, legal
matters or publicity would review (for technical content) an article on
phased arrays. As far as I could tell, their reviews were weighted
equally to those from people who really understood the topic. In any
case, the one or few reviews from knowledgeable people were generally
lost in the noise. I don't know if this is the method still being used
-- I resigned my TA appointment several years ago when it became
apparent that I was no longer able to make any substantial contribution.
I know of at least a couple of very knowledgeable people who have done
likewise. This is a shame, because they're perfectly willing to provide
free technical assistance, yet the ARRL doesn't seem able to find a way
to take advantage of it.

I'm not sure they've ever solved the problem of editors who don't
understand the material modifying it in such a way as to make it no
longer true. In all cases but one when this happened to me, I was able
to correct the problems before publication. In one case, however, I
wasn't given enough time to correct the numerous misinterpretations,
invalid "explanations", and other seriously wrong modifications made by
the editor and had to pull the article(*). Several extremely capable
people I know, however, have had serious errors introduced to their
articles by the editor *after their final review*, so they didn't even
get to see the errors until the article was published under their name.
Most of these people will never write for QST again as a result. This is
one of the reasons that QST has a smaller pool of knowledgeable and
capable authors to draw from.

So when you see a technically weak article in QST, the author might not
be entirely at fault.

(*) I want to make it clear that I'm very aware that my writing and
communicating skills aren't all that great, and I really appreciate
having an editor improve the style, clarity, and brevity of my writing,
as well as questioning any weak or inconsistent arguments I've made. [A
good editor would have cut half the words from the preceding sentence,
and made it a lot clearer at the same time.] So I welcome editing. What
I do object to is editing which changes the core meaning of the content
and/or results in its being technically incorrect.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

On 26 Oct, 13:12, 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 -- if comments weren't there by the deadline, too bad.
What I saw as one problem with this approach was that comments and
analyses were regularly being made by TAs whose appointments had nothing
at all to do with the subject matter. As an example (not representing
any actual particular occurrence), a TA whose expertise was, say, legal
matters or publicity would review (for technical content) an article on
phased arrays. As far as I could tell, their reviews were weighted
equally to those from people who really understood the topic. In any
case, the one or few reviews from knowledgeable people were generally
lost in the noise. I don't know if this is the method still being used
-- I resigned my TA appointment several years ago when it became
apparent that I was no longer able to make any substantial contribution.
I know of at least a couple of very knowledgeable people who have done
likewise. This is a shame, because they're perfectly willing to provide
free technical assistance, yet the ARRL doesn't seem able to find a way
to take advantage of it.

I'm not sure they've ever solved the problem of editors who don't
understand the material modifying it in such a way as to make it no
longer true. In all cases but one when this happened to me, I was able
to correct the problems before publication. In one case, however, I
wasn't given enough time to correct the numerous misinterpretations,
invalid "explanations", and other seriously wrong modifications made by
the editor and had to pull the article(*). Several extremely capable
people I know, however, have had serious errors introduced to their
articles by the editor *after their final review*, so they didn't even
get to see the errors until the article was published under their name.
Most of these people will never write for QST again as a result. This is
one of the reasons that QST has a smaller pool of knowledgeable and
capable authors to draw from.

So when you see a technically weak article in QST, the author might not
be entirely at fault.

(*) I want to make it clear that I'm very aware that my writing and
communicating skills aren't all that great, and I really appreciate
having an editor improve the style, clarity, and brevity of my writing,
as well as questioning any weak or inconsistent arguments I've made. [A
good editor would have cut half the words from the preceding sentence,
and made it a lot clearer at the same time.] So I welcome editing. What
I do object to is editing which changes the core meaning of the content
and/or results in its being technically incorrect.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

But "experts" are usually diehards and unwilling to
accept, analyse, or review change.
Can you imagine some of the "experts" on this group
having a hand at what should be printed and what was hogwash?
Maybe it is time to govern science by the polls.
Art

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
SNIP
Didn't look to see what you are using to post but could you please
set your line length correctly. Sixty eight characters would do
fine! (E.G. as Thunderbird has corrected your post above.)

Thanks,


Charlie.

--
M0WYM
www.radiowymsey.org

charlie wrote:

Didn't look to see what you are using to post but could you please
set your line length correctly. Sixty eight characters would do
fine! (E.G. as Thunderbird has corrected your post above.)



Roy seems to be using T'Bird which if I remember correctly defaults to 72
characters per line. Roy's post showed up fine in Knode here too.

Art Clemons wrote:
SNIP


Roy seems to be using T'Bird which if I remember correctly defaults to 72
characters per line. Roy's post showed up fine in Knode here too.

Yes, I noticed later that he was using TB in which my default is 68
but 72 would do Maybe Knode automatically wraps the lines?



Charlie.

--
M0WYM
www.radiowymsey.org

charlie wrote:
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
SNIP
Didn't look to see what you are using to post but could you please
set your line length correctly. Sixty eight characters would do
fine! (E.G. as Thunderbird has corrected your post above.)

I'm using Thunderbird 2.0.0.6, which defaults to flowed rather than
fixed width format. Please see
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Fixed_width_messages. When flowed text
messages are viewed with Thunderbird (at least with mine), they wrap to
the window width. If the flowed format is causing a problem for other
readers, please email me. If it is a general problem I can force it to
post in fixed line width. But let's take the discussion off line.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Very interesting, indeed. This probably accounts for the gradual shift (not
for the better) in QST technical articles over a number of years. There
seems to be more "publicity oriented" wording than precise technical content
compared to twenty or thirty years ago. I had assumed this was an
intentional effort to better address new hams, but I see it may have been
due to the editing process.

This editing problem is certainly not confined to QST. One of the few things
that sends my blood pressure to an astronomical level is for an editor to
make changes they do not understand. I depend on various font and
indentation settings for much of my material; now and then an editor will
decide to "standardize" these and I go completely off the wall.
Unfortunately, in many organizations the editors usually have the last shot
at material.

Bill - W2WO


"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message
...
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 -- if comments weren't there by the deadline, too bad. What I saw
as one problem with this approach was that comments and analyses were
regularly being made by TAs whose appointments had nothing at all to do
with the subject matter. As an example (not representing any actual
particular occurrence), a TA whose expertise was, say, legal matters or
publicity would review (for technical content) an article on phased
arrays. As far as I could tell, their reviews were weighted equally to
those from people who really understood the topic. In any case, the one or
few reviews from knowledgeable people were generally lost in the noise. I
don't know if this is the method still being used -- I resigned my TA
appointment several years ago when it became apparent that I was no longer
able to make any substantial contribution. I know of at least a couple of
very knowledgeable people who have done likewise. This is a shame, because
they're perfectly willing to provide free technical assistance, yet the
ARRL doesn't seem able to find a way to take advantage of it.

I'm not sure they've ever solved the problem of editors who don't
understand the material modifying it in such a way as to make it no longer
true. In all cases but one when this happened to me, I was able to correct
the problems before publication. In one case, however, I wasn't given
enough time to correct the numerous misinterpretations, invalid
"explanations", and other seriously wrong modifications made by the editor
and had to pull the article(*). Several extremely capable people I know,
however, have had serious errors introduced to their articles by the
editor *after their final review*, so they didn't even get to see the
errors until the article was published under their name. Most of these
people will never write for QST again as a result. This is one of the
reasons that QST has a smaller pool of knowledgeable and capable authors
to draw from.

So when you see a technically weak article in QST, the author might not be
entirely at fault.

(*) I want to make it clear that I'm very aware that my writing and
communicating skills aren't all that great, and I really appreciate having
an editor improve the style, clarity, and brevity of my writing, as well
as questioning any weak or inconsistent arguments I've made. [A good
editor would have cut half the words from the preceding sentence, and made
it a lot clearer at the same time.] So I welcome editing. What I do object
to is editing which changes the core meaning of the content and/or results
in its being technically incorrect.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

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