[vsnet-alert 11306] question on publication

[redvars at fastmail.co.uk]

Hmmm, does issuing an ejaavso saying "I've submitted all this that and
the other to AAVSO VSX and this is a note saying so, and here are some
lightcurves of about half a dozen of the bestest ones so all the
unillustrated 1200+ L: must be as good too honest, therefore I've now
published these stars and they are mine despite my not having actually
published a table or lightcurves (just a link to a spreadsheet
somewhere) nor done any further checks of the literature for them since
January 2007" mean that these stars have now been published?  And what
if some had been published and most likely properly classified in the
meantime?

I missed asking that bit earlier, sorry.

Web 2.0, gotta love it.

It isn't the creationists and the ufologists astro peeps have to watch
out for, they're in plain sight enough and easily recognised, it's the
fifth columnist pseudoscientists who run around making large claims
based on a dubious quantity with a blatant disregard for quality.

Hell, within that context them macho eclipsers I mentioned on avson list
would be published, if it's an "I say so" thing.  And they certainly
_aren't_ published.  Just pointed out.  But the above lot will now be
claimed to be published in a peer reviewed journal, you watch and see.

Cheers

John

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - Or how I learned to stop worrying and
                          love email again