Re: Fwd: IBVS

[Taichi Kato <tkato@kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp>]

Re: Fwd: IBVS

> Our paper explains the type 
> and period of a star that has hitherto gone unstudied. It was 
> suspected of being variable and we confirmed it and figured out 
> the type, period and amplitude of the star. That's all we 
> claimed to do and I think we did that very well. If not the 
> IBVS, where else is appropriate to publish this stuff? Seems to 
> me it is the very mission of the IBVS. If I am wrong, please let 
> me know, and I will direct my efforts elsewhere.
> 
> Also of note, is their terse comment "Fig 1 is unnecessary". 
> Guess that ends that debate! ;)

   IBVS seems to be no longer what we have expected that journal would
come to be.  They seem to even regard any (either professional or ameteur)
observations "infest" the IBVS like some sort of vermin, if the observations
don't match their "classical" form of preference.  To their eyes, cataclysmic
variables may look too inderterministic compared to eclipsing binaries, and
automated survey observations may look too modern to accept regardless of
the science.

   They may regard that modern works are too productive and are hard to
accept from a classical standard.  They seem to adhere to something like
classical multicolor photometry of bright eclipsing binaries, reduced with
a standard method, and occasionally new variable stars from extensive
photographic research.  The titles in recently published articles in IBVS
remind me of the pre-1990 era.  The "clockwork" made at the IBVS board was
apparently to turn a clock back a few decades.

Regards,
Taichi Kato