|
>
That for a magazine to be credible, it must be
accurate. Such credibility, or lack thereof, will also reflect on
the organisation which sponsors the magazine and claims it as its official
journal.
Just
look at the popularity of such publications as New Idea, Women's Day, WHO;
questionable accuracy, but quite popular, and I daresay deemed cradible (???) by
some. That aside...
Skysailor is not a peer-reviewed, refereed publication, nor does it
pretend to be (IMHO).
Articles appear to be accepted as they are written and submitted
(inaccuracies and all). I am not quite sure whether the photos that appear in
the magazine are from an image library or such; however, contributors of
photographs should at least provide a caption or explanation of a
photograph.
I my
professional work, I have written (or co-authored) articles for scientific and
medical journals. The process of peer review, rejection,
editing, resubmission etc. is quite draining and prolonged. Even when an
article is accepted for publication, revisions prior to the final draft are
usual. Despite this rigourous process, incorrect captions, errors and omissions
still occur, and normally an addendum or erratum is issued in a following
issue.
Again,
skysailor does not pretend to be such a journal. The editorial staff have a
somewhat thankless job, and should be commended on the times they 'get it right'
(more often than not) and gently forgiven (and provided correct information) for
the rare times that they 'get it wrong'.
I
believe it is up to contributors to provide quality articles to Skysailor. This
journal should a reflection of our membership.
If
writing a discussion or review article, for a minimum, the author(s) should
provide a suggested reading list, so that the interested reader can refer to
information for themselves.
My
2.2c worth,
Merry
Christmas all!
Michael Texler
|
_______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
