Return to the front page
Peer review, or refereeing, is when an author's research is scrutined by professional astronomers who are experts in the same field. Peer review helps prevent the formal publication of unwarranted claims, unjustified interpretations and personal views. An article that has not been peer reviewed is far less likely to be taken seriously by fellow astronomers. Of course it is quite possible for an amateur astronomer to have a long and enjoyable time in the hobby without ever getting involved with peer reviewed publication but for some it is a sine qua non.
March 2010 - 40 previously unreported variable stars in the OGLE-II database
September 2009 - Possible Misclassified Eclipsing Binary Stars Within the Detached Eclipsing Binary Light Curve Fitter (DEBiL) Data Set
June 2009 - Identifying Previously Uncatalogued Red Variable Stars in the Northern Sky Variability Survey
March 2009 - Five new variable stars in the field of the old nova RS Car
February 2009 - Identifying Previously Uncatalogued Mira Variable Stars in the Optical Gravitational Lensing Experiment (OGLE) Database
December 2008 - Consecutive Eclipses of Z Chamaeleontis in Outburst
December 2008 - Eclipses of OY Carinae in Outburst
Spring 2006 - Unreported High Proper Motion Stars in the LSPM Catalog
2005 - The Daventry Double Star Survey
February 2010 - Asteroid Astrometry using the Lowell Observatory Hierarchical Observation Protocol (HOP)
October 2009 - Common proper-motion pairs in the UCAC3 catalogue
September 2009 - The discovery of a new triple star system (MLR 647)
September 2009 - A Critique of the Greaves Method for Identifying Common Proper-Motion Pairs
August 2009 - A repudiation of the views on academic publication contained in vsnet-alert 11306
August 2009 - Rental Scopes and Scientific Credit - a rebuttal
February 2009 - Remote Astronomical Observing with Global Rent-A-Scope (GRAS)
Martin Nicholson - Daventry, United Kingdom.
This page was last updated on September 24th 2012.