7th December 2007, 02:05 PM
Originally posted by beamo
I am very much in favour of grey literature (i.e. client reports) being under the company name, with due acknowledgements given within the body of the report to those who contributed in whatever way. I see no problem with citing such reports as **** Archaeology 2005a, 2005b etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Care to tell us why?
Certainly. The client has probably commissioned lots of reports from any number of consultants with regard to that particular project - eg. ecology, transport strategy, landscape apparaisal etc. for all of these the client has selected the company rather than any particular individual (although there will often be some element of previous contact etc). None of the other reports submitted to the client will have named authors, as they are the product of the company - it is not so much about brand identity (as previously suggested) by about corporate responsibility, i.e the company is responsible for the product (good or bad) rather than the individual. Why should archaeology be any different in this?
Beamo
I am very much in favour of grey literature (i.e. client reports) being under the company name, with due acknowledgements given within the body of the report to those who contributed in whatever way. I see no problem with citing such reports as **** Archaeology 2005a, 2005b etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Care to tell us why?
Certainly. The client has probably commissioned lots of reports from any number of consultants with regard to that particular project - eg. ecology, transport strategy, landscape apparaisal etc. for all of these the client has selected the company rather than any particular individual (although there will often be some element of previous contact etc). None of the other reports submitted to the client will have named authors, as they are the product of the company - it is not so much about brand identity (as previously suggested) by about corporate responsibility, i.e the company is responsible for the product (good or bad) rather than the individual. Why should archaeology be any different in this?
Beamo