6th December 2007, 07:35 PM
Posted by Beamo:
Archaeology is a co-operative excersise, so it is probably very rare to have any primary reporting (as opposed to synthetic articles) where the main author is not drawing on work by a whole team. It is particularly relevant in my field (EIA), where all reports are 'grey' and are also multi-disciplinary, often with up to 12 primary authors, only one of whom is an archaeologist (plus me, as the editor).
My view is that the main author or editor, plus those who have contributed actual content for the report, should be identified by name in the report. Acknowledgement of the wider team that has contributed to the project, but not the report, is nice but not essential. However, the policy of my company, is to identify no-one by name.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Quote:quote:But the author of the site report is basing his/her work on the achievements of the labour of anonymous diggers/supervisors etcThat is true - but it applies to excavation reports published in a journal just as much as to 'grey' literature.
Archaeology is a co-operative excersise, so it is probably very rare to have any primary reporting (as opposed to synthetic articles) where the main author is not drawing on work by a whole team. It is particularly relevant in my field (EIA), where all reports are 'grey' and are also multi-disciplinary, often with up to 12 primary authors, only one of whom is an archaeologist (plus me, as the editor).
My view is that the main author or editor, plus those who have contributed actual content for the report, should be identified by name in the report. Acknowledgement of the wider team that has contributed to the project, but not the report, is nice but not essential. However, the policy of my company, is to identify no-one by name.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished