User:RickLive/sandbox

ALGOL (February 10th, 2016): The title of the last paper was "... The Ancient Egyptian Discovery of Algol's Period Confirmed" This title was certainly unambiguous. This title and the whole paper were accepted by the referees, the editor and editorial board of PLOS ONE. Now astrolynx expresses his/her own personal subjective opinion by stating that this result is a "conjecture". The data had been around for over 3000 years and the last result was published less than two months ago. How many thousand years should the scientific community wait for the confirmation expected by astrolynx? This "conjecture" argument would be fair, if astrolynx or anybody else could publish peer reviewed research showing, e.g. where the statistical analysis of this new research has failed. Until then, personal subjective opinions should not be used to dismiss published peer reviewed scientific results.