26th February 2013, 01:04 PM
Just picked up on this debate. The blog post flags up some interesting issues. At the heart of it seems to be "what do we mean by publication". Robert Chapple seems to suggest that the gold standard should be fully peer reviewed publications in journals / monographs. I'm not sure I agree with this entirely.
First, there are some practical issues- there is no way that a journa such as UJA could cope with publishing all commercial archaeological interventions carried out in a given region. There is a real problem with capacity - local journals simply don't have the room to publish all the material - particularly as most local journals are not commercial concerns but run by volunteers from local societies. Even with publication subventions I think that most local journals would have serious problems in tackling all this material, not to mention that many journals might not want to be treated as semi-offical outlets for mass publication of minor site reports.
Second, is this issue of 'peer review'; most archaeological reports have two elements- the publication of the raw data (matrices; finds reports; basic phasing) on one hand and the wider interpretation / contextual material onthe other hand. For me, the most important element is the raw/minimally processed data - and it is this which is least amenable to 'peer review' unless the reviewer audits the original archives (which is really not the job of a peer reviewer)- many of us regularly use grey literature for research purposes, the fact that its not peer reviewed is not really a problem or an issue.
The key issue for me is not the full publication of all sites- but rather the prompt appearance of the 'grey lit' in an accessible format. However, this requires two things (1) that the curators have the willingness/ability/capacit to actually enforce quality standards during the excavation stage itself as well as in meeting the existing standards for grey lit (2) convenient access to the grey lit- with this in mind it is surprising that the NI archaeology scene appears not to be participating in OASIS. I may be wrong, but I can't find any evidence for a NI specific equivalent- if this is so, it is profoundly dismaying. It doesn't take a huge amount of investment in time/money to build a simple webpage with attached PDFs.
Overall I'd agree with Bob Chapple that NI has some specific issues with publication/accessing raw data- but I'm not sure I agree with his apocalyptic alternative. What's needed is some serious enforcement from the curators (and the support of their political masters) and a quick and easy fix to get the grey lit available on the web.
David
First, there are some practical issues- there is no way that a journa such as UJA could cope with publishing all commercial archaeological interventions carried out in a given region. There is a real problem with capacity - local journals simply don't have the room to publish all the material - particularly as most local journals are not commercial concerns but run by volunteers from local societies. Even with publication subventions I think that most local journals would have serious problems in tackling all this material, not to mention that many journals might not want to be treated as semi-offical outlets for mass publication of minor site reports.
Second, is this issue of 'peer review'; most archaeological reports have two elements- the publication of the raw data (matrices; finds reports; basic phasing) on one hand and the wider interpretation / contextual material onthe other hand. For me, the most important element is the raw/minimally processed data - and it is this which is least amenable to 'peer review' unless the reviewer audits the original archives (which is really not the job of a peer reviewer)- many of us regularly use grey literature for research purposes, the fact that its not peer reviewed is not really a problem or an issue.
The key issue for me is not the full publication of all sites- but rather the prompt appearance of the 'grey lit' in an accessible format. However, this requires two things (1) that the curators have the willingness/ability/capacit to actually enforce quality standards during the excavation stage itself as well as in meeting the existing standards for grey lit (2) convenient access to the grey lit- with this in mind it is surprising that the NI archaeology scene appears not to be participating in OASIS. I may be wrong, but I can't find any evidence for a NI specific equivalent- if this is so, it is profoundly dismaying. It doesn't take a huge amount of investment in time/money to build a simple webpage with attached PDFs.
Overall I'd agree with Bob Chapple that NI has some specific issues with publication/accessing raw data- but I'm not sure I agree with his apocalyptic alternative. What's needed is some serious enforcement from the curators (and the support of their political masters) and a quick and easy fix to get the grey lit available on the web.
David