开云体育

To answer your question, here is my longish response.?

I have increasingly been unhappy with the way the QST editorial staff has been processing articles. In my not-so-humble opinion, they are incompetent and disorganized. I stopped submitting my articles to QST in July and instead started to submit them to RadCom and QRP Quarterly. You have seen a few of them already. Alas, there is no CQ anymore, so there will be no more articles of mine in CQ.

I actually submitted my original Delta loop article to QST at the end of April, 2024 and officially withdrew it in October and submitted it to RadCom. This is what happened. When I hadn't heard anything from QST about the article three months after submission, I wrote them to inquire what was happening. They told me that because of the malware attack on ARRL's system in May, everything was delayed but they would be reviewing my article in the August meeting and I would hear from them shortly thereafter. I didn't hear from them for another two months. I finally?wrote an angry letter to them in early October. They told me that my article was one of the two articles they lost in the malware fiasco. They apparently knew the fact for some time and were not doing anything, If I hadn't written my October letter, chances are that I would still be waiting. ?

Even under normal circumstances, it takes one to three months after you submit an article to QST for them to notify you if the article is accepted for publication. Then it takes up to three years before the article is actually printed. (QST has been sitting on one of my short articles for the Hints and Hacks column for two years now and I have no idea when they will publish it.) ?QST's publishing process is way too long and opaque, in my opinion. Timeliness of an article may be lost. Besides, it is depriving an author an opportunity to submit his article to another publisher. (Though not illegal, it is not considered ethical to submit the same article to more than one publisher at the same time.)?

I met two directors of the ARRL during Pacificon and told them about what happened to my article and gave them my suggestion for some concrete policy changes for the editorial process. They agreed that there are problems and said they would do something. To date, I haven't seen any changes.

Hiroki AH6CY