The bizarre set of circumstances that occurred to Rich as a result of the
now infamous "Technical Correspondence" rebuttal (see reference below in
Phil's reply), would have never occurred had the article been submitted for
publication in a professional trade journal. Notwithstanding the ARRL's
procedure for accepting an article for publication in the first place, a
professional journal would have dealt with this issue in a true professional
manner:
Any issues as a result of Rich's published content should have been
submitted to an unbiased, financially disinterested technical review board
prior to any "rebuttal" publication occurring in QST. The League's review
board, functioning as an unbiased mediator would, much like a court trial,
review all evidence presented by both parties and decide what, if any action
should be taken to correct any technical inaccuracies or deficiencies based
on prima-facia evidence.
Instead, the League decided to form an ad-hoc review board (the
"contributors") without disclosing their rationale for selecting these
individuals. Several contributors were far from being financially
disinterested. Did Rich have a financial interest in the content of his
article "The Nearly Perfect Amplifier?" Perhaps to the degree that he
addressed the need for low-VHF-Q suppressors, although I don't recall
reading an overt or heralding advertisement for his suppressors in the
original article (someone keep me honest here). Nevertheless, this factor
alone should not stand in the way of the article being published as are
other articles which advance concepts that affect the financial position of
the author or the companies they represent. This is different...much
different. Without analyzing the contributor's data (if any), each
contributor was allowed to take his turn at the soap box, one at a time. A
professional journal would have never allowed single attacks, one-at-a-time
to be published in a journal. Even in non-journal publications, so-called
"letters to the editor" allow an equal opportunity to heard. I had never
seen anything like it in a professional or non-professional technical
publication of any kind. This was "tabloid journalism" at its best.
A point to ponder: Did all the "contributors" agree to have their soap-box
rebuttals published in the manner in which it appeared?
I'm a strong advocate of the ARRL. However, as in any organization from
time-to-time, mistakes are made. Unfortunately, the attacking and
self-serving rebuttal had an opportunity to be suppressed at several stages
within the League's administrative organization. What happened and where
was the leadership?
-Paul, W9AC
> Rich wrote an article in QST, January 1994; page 30, "The Nearly Perfect
Amplifier."
> In September, 1994 QST in the "Technical Correspondence" section, page 71,
> a group of "Contributors" questioned the technical accuracy of several
points made
> in the article.
>
> The "Contributors" were:
> 1 .Frederick J. Telewski, WA7ZTY
> 2. Reid Brandon, W6MTF
> 3. Bill Clemow, KE7CX
> 4. John C. Faken, KB6MU
> 5. Steven D. Katz, WB2WIK/6
> 6. Tom Rauch, W8JI
>
> I will let you judge for yourself on who was correct and who was not, but
as a result
> subsequent articles submitted by Rich to QST for publication were rejected
by the
> editors of QST, including his rebuttal to the Technical Correspondence
disputing
> his article.
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/amps
Submissions: amps@contesting.com
Administrative requests: amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-amps@contesting.com
|