Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2010
To answer the original question: because this country has signed up to a little thing called Valletta the restrictive nature of which caused some concern at the time. This little piece of European wide agreement seems to be currently ignored by the Con Dems and others.
Posts: 7
Threads: 3
Joined: Mar 2009
as an ideal, better forms of peer review must also be an advantage moving forward...
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2010
GnomeKing Wrote:as an ideal, better forms of peer review must also be an advantage moving forward...
I've met some of my peers....and some of the comments that come back from journals after 'peer review' don't help that train of thought.... :0
Posts: 7
Threads: 3
Joined: Mar 2009
well ok...but at least an intellectually defensible basis for authority, no?
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2010
May be a bit 1970s, but I'd rather be peer-reviewed by people I've seen drunk, gives a much better insight, although on the other hand people in the past have re-employed me
despite seeing me drunk....but then again maybe they couldn't remember the following morning?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2011
Sith Wrote:To answer the question in the thread title: because not everyone out there is a trowel wielding paragon of archaeological virtue.
it seems to me that this is the closest to an answer to the thread but it still does not cover competence ...........or ability or skill or imagination or knowledge or.... .
peer review is fine for the end result but all the stuff that went on to get there is open to abuse and misuse and incompetence and lack of imagination and knowledge and ....
there are people out there offering a service and a product that may not be fit for purpose and possibly a crime against our heritage - but who can tell?
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2005
P Prentice Wrote:there are people out there offering a service and a product that may not be fit for purpose and possibly a crime against our heritage - but who can tell?
A good point but how on earth can this be regulated? I can't imagine that having a (suitably qualified and experienced) bod from IfA with a clipboard and a copy of the CoP at the end of every trial trench is a very practical option. Nor would it be very welcome, after all, we all know that all archaeological organisations apart from our own are charlatans.
D. Vader
Senior Consultant
Vader Maull & Palpatine
Archaeological Consultants
A tremor in the Force. The last time I felt it was in the presence of Tony Robinson.
Why do archaeologists need to be regulated?
