hort.net Seasonal photo, (c) 2006 Christopher P. Lindsey, All Rights Reserved: do not copy
articles | gallery of plants | blog | tech blog | plant profiles | patents | mailing lists | top stories | links | shorturl service | tom clothier's archive0
Gallery of Plants
Tech Blog
Plant Profiles
Mailing Lists
    Search ALL lists
    Search help
    Subscription info
Top Stories
sHORTurl service
Tom Clothier's Archive
 Top Stories
Disease could hit Britain's trees hard

Ten of the best snowdrop cultivars

Plant protein database helps identify plant gene functions

Dendroclimatologists record history through trees

Potato beetle could be thwarted through gene manipulation

Hawaii expands coffee farm quarantine

Study explains flower petal loss

Unauthorized use of a plant doesn't invalidate it's patent

RSS story archive

Re: hosta-open DIGEST V1 #400

  • Subject: Re: hosta-open DIGEST V1 #400
  • From: Jaspersail@aol.com
  • Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 22:17:18 EDT

For me, I'm glad we have both the Hosta Journal (THJ) and HostaScience.  As hosta growers, we are richer for having both and I hope both are successful in reaching their target audiences.  I enjoy reading both. 

I do feel the need to respond to a couple comments Bill made:

<<Without getting into the quality of the material
as I have not yet read it, I will say that Ed is not known for being

That is a rather ridiculous statement to make.  As someone who has read Ed's material, I can say it's remarkably focused, technically thorough, and anything but verbose. In other words, it is concise.

<<The only objections I've heard from AHS officials about Ed's journal
concern his intentional distortion of AHS policy... >>
If there have been intentional distortions, I hope someone will document them.  To refute his claims without evidence is rather unconvincing, to say the least.  According to Ed, three of his manuscripts had been accepted for publication 3 to 9 months prior to the Board's action (when the manuscripts were suddenly deemed unacceptable).  And they were returned with the edict that "Original scientific papers containing extensive data from laboratory experiments are better published in a refereed archival scientific journal; however, The Hosta Journal welcomes summary papers."  Is it your contention that Ed fabricated this statement?  Or did it apply to Ed Elslager only?

<<... and his drawing good scientific articles away from the AHS Journal to his own publication.>>

Why would anyone want to publish "good scientific articles" in the AHJ if supporting evidence is unwelcome?  That's not science and that's not the scientific method.  And it seems to contradict the Board's decree I quoted above. 

You can't have it both ways.  If you only want scientific summary papers, why aren't you thrilled that another publication will facilitate that?  If you want good scientific articles, are you willing to make space available for good research and documentation?  If not, don't pretend that Ed is stealing away articles from the AHJ. 

Personally, I hope the two journals can develop a symbiosis to benefit all hosta lovers.  The personal attacks and accusations I can do without.

John Christensen

 © 1995-2015 Mallorn Computing, Inc.All Rights Reserved.
Our Privacy Statement
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index