Research be seen as integral to development excavation.

[Odinn]

The problem with getting 'recognised experts' out to look at things on site is that (a) in my experience they quite often turn out to have even less knowledge than I do and are blagging it on the basis of having done some research excavation in the 1960s, (b) it's usually impossible to get anyone to come from the other end of the country for free, and © the hole's usually been backfilled long before they have a window in their schedule/retirement.....

This reads as though you think that visiting the site is part of the peer review process. It would not be in an academic site, so why should it be in the case of a commercial site? The review is of the quality of the report on the site. The curator still has oversight of and responsibility for the quality of the fieldwork. They should also have input into reviewing the report and a right to comment on it. However, the peer review governs the quality of the report, as it would with any journal article. It checks that the reporting is up to snuff and that the conclusions fit with the evidence as presented.

[GnomeKing]

@ dinosaur : some evals/wb's might be that quick....lots aren't .......some might even be termed 'archaeological excavations'

unfortunately, research potential that a specialist could develop greatly, is not always recognised by the field team/their mana

[Dinosaur]

Odinn - as I think I pointed out a couple of pages above, most curators don't have a PhD in everything that might be found on an eval, half the time (more, actually) they never turn up on site anyway, and they're generally far too overworked to start peer-reviewing stuff (and I'm not clear that that's part of their remit anyway - Vulpes want to contribute on that?), which will obviously get considerably worse if the expected mass-cull occurs in the next year or so.

Gnomeking - think you've missed the point of an eval, they're to find out what's there to inform further mitigation (if any), not to conduct a full-scale research dig. 'Hidden Potential' gets put forward in the relevent section of the eval report for consideration when developing any subsequent mitigation strategy - which might be to go build somewhere else in which case we don't ever get to find out what that potential is, but c'est la vie.

[BAJR]

I refer the honourable Dinosaur to the answer given previously.

The review is of the quality of the report on the site. The curator still has oversight of and responsibility for the quality of the fieldwork.

This is what I tried to do, often causing a clash of heads, and sometimes overstepping a mark, which teh contractor was right to point out..." it is not in the brief. " OR " This is just an eval, it is up to you to decide whether it should go to a costed mitigation "

When it was all that happened though, I would also weigh up... is it enough, without going to a costly mitigation... if we were to add an extra paragraph... would that give the report some value.

ITs hard... I am sure Vulpes will have an opinion... though it will be short and er...pithy I expect!

[Odinn]

Odinn - as I think I pointed out a couple of pages above, most curators don't have a PhD in everything that might be found on an eval, half the time (more, actually) they never turn up on site anyway, and they're generally far too overworked to start peer-reviewing stuff (and I'm not clear that that's part of their remit anyway - Vulpes want to contribute on that?), which will obviously get considerably worse if the expected mass-cull occurs in the next year or so.

I don't think anyone suggested that curators did have PhDs in everything, but then one might turn that comment around and point out that neither site staff nor consultants generally have PhDs in everything that might turn up on an evaluation either, yet they take responsibility for the management and excavation of those sites. That is not really the point though and it should also be pointed out that many do have detailed knowledge of their area from working in it for so long. However, that is largely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. No one ever said that peer-review lay within the remit of the curator. The comment was made that formal peer-review might be a means to establish academic credibility for reports that are produced. If it were to be introduced, then the curator is the logical person to co-ordinate this process, as the person with oversight of the fieldwork and reporting. Yes, it would add to their burden and that might preclude its adoption. I understand that curators are often overworked. I also understand that if there is a mass cull then curators will be even more stretched than before so adoption of peer review might well not be practical in the slightest.

However, from your comments I think you may not fully understand what peer review is and how it works. The point of peer review is that the report/article is sent to the person that is best placed to understand and comment on its content (not necessarily the curator of that area). It is reviewed anonymously (neither reader nor writer knows who the other is). The curator, in this instance, would send the report to the reviewer and forward the comments (along with any of their own) to the writer for action, so that the report could be formally issued and the condition discharged.

[vulpes]

Peer review aside, all curators can legitimately do at the moment is hold contractors to the brief and subsequent documentation, WSIs, Post-Ex Assessments and Updated Project Designs all the products of MAP2 or MoRPHE or whatever system you're using today.

So, for example if a PXA/UPD flags up potential for further examination / analysis / discussion of this or that; the curator should expect to see it in the final report. If it's not there, the report's a bad 'un and should be rejected. Conversely if the Project Manager at the contractor is doing their job properly everything promised in the preceding documentation should be delivered unless there's an over-riding reason for it not to be. Easy, as long as the key actors are adequately resourced to do this checking.

Odinn's model is fine, but would need funding. And is also predicated on the assumption that there is something badly wrong with the majority of developer funded publication reports which I'm not sure that I agree with. But then again, I'm probably not qualified to comment eh? }

I would also add that the above system depends on a quantity of goodwill from the contractor (thin ice if you don't approve their reports?), not to mention the potential difficulties associated with actually enforcing any of this through the planning system which between us is a bit of a nightmare.

I 've still not voted on the (still) badly worded survey at the top of this thread either.

[Odinn]

Odinn's model is fine, but would need funding. And is also predicated on the assumption that there is something badly wrong with the majority of developer funded publication reports which I'm not sure that I agree with.

I don't think I originally suggested the idea. I was just adding my tuppence ha'penny to the discussion, having dealt with peer review in the past. The notion as presented, and as I envisage it, was that peer review might lend the necessary academic kudos to get the academic world to take the commercial world more seriously. It certainly does not assume that there is something badly wrong with the majority of developer funded publication reports. Any suggestion that this is the case is a gross misrepresentation of what I have been trying to say. Of course, if you wish to discuss reports that are deficient or have something badly wrong with them, we could always turn the discussion to that. I have reviewed and edited more than my fair share of such reports over the past umpteen years.

But then again, I'm probably not qualified to comment eh?

You might suggest that. I could not possibly comment. :p

[vulpes]

Sorry, my mistake. Wasn't intending to grossly misrepresent anyone. It is a nice idea to peer review all publication reports, whoever's it was (Dinosaur's probably), but you did flesh it out and suggest how it could work in this context Odinn, thanks. :face-approve: But I think we'll probably have to stick with the system we have for now, for better or worse. Regional (and national / subject) research agenda haven't been raised much yet in this discussion but greater use of these by all concerned should help.

[BAJR]

In which case, please do raise them. As we have had these Regional Research Agendas... how often are they used, updated as the fluid nature of that study moves with new information.. are they organic enough. Do contractors reach for them when considering a tender? Do Curators push them in Briefs?

I agree a greater use would help, but how?

[Odinn]

It is a nice idea to peer review all publication reports, whoever's it was (Dinosaur's probably), but you did flesh it out and suggest how it could work in this context Odinn, thanks. :face-approve: But I think we'll probably have to stick with the system we have for now, for better or worse. Regional (and national / subject) research agenda haven't been raised much yet in this discussion but greater use of these by all concerned should help.

Would it be defensible to include peer-review as part of the report-checking process in the brief? Is there anything in PPS5 or the legislation that would preclude that?

Research agendas are fine as far as they go, but they need to be living documents to take account of developments in the area. My experience has shown that they tend to get written and then not revisited (if at all) for ages. I have used them for a variety of projects, but they tended to be ignored for the smaller stuff. Even the curators have only really bothered with them when discussing larger excavations. Sometimes it is hard to know how to apply them to commercial work too, because the whole site is going to be destroyed: do you try to record everything, remembering that you will not get a chance to revisit the site after it is built on, or only focus on the areas that the research agenda says is important? They do help to focus the fieldwork once you have the site open and know what is there though, which means that you can target specific important areas for extra attention.

Are there any examples of research agendas that are regularly updated? The concept of a living document online that is amended regularly would be great, but where would the money come from?