Reader Comments
Post a new comment on this article
Post Your Discussion Comment
Please follow our guidelines for comments and review our competing interests policy. Comments that do not conform to our guidelines will be promptly removed and the user account disabled. The following must be avoided:
- Remarks that could be interpreted as allegations of misconduct
- Unsupported assertions or statements
- Inflammatory or insulting language
Thank You!
Thank you for taking the time to flag this posting; we review flagged postings on a regular basis.
closeA remark on criticisms supporting the hoax hypothesis
Posted by mmontemu on 24 Jun 2013 at 13:15 GMT
In the few hours elapsed since the publication of our paper, where we provide quantitative evidence that the Voynich manuscript contains a genuine linguistic message, several critical comments authored by advocates of the hypothesis that the manuscript is a hoax, have been posted in the paper's webpage in PLOS ONE and appeared in a few personal blogs over the internet.
We would like to stress that -until the manuscript is decoded, or the hoax's fabrication becomes historically proven- any scientifically sound contribution to elucidate its nature will, at most, bring partial support to either opinion.
We think that it is important to maintain the discussion at a scientific level that guarantees a minimum standard of quality. Therefore, from now on, we may not respond to criticisms supporting the hoax hypothesis, unless:
1. They have been peer-reviewed before publication in order to guarantee their scientific rigour.
2. They provide substantial quantitative evidence that the hoax hypothesis explains all the statistical regularities unveiled by our contribution as well as by others’ previous work, in order to match our paper's methodological perspective of the problem.
We support the open system of comments of PLOS ONE, and at the same time wish encourage in it a high level of scientific discussion.
Marcelo A. Montemurro and Damian H. Zanette