Posts: 7
Threads: 3
Joined: Mar 2009
25th November 2010, 02:14 PM
if so many archs are out of work, perhaps that leaves the possibility of more direct peer review of sites....checking up on the lucky ones with jobs to make sure they maintain the highest standards with out selling out the profession ...
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
25th November 2010, 04:00 PM
vulpes Wrote:Journal articles for national journals are ususally peer reviewed. I always pass on reports with any scientific content to the EH Science Advisor who would consult with other experts as necessary on this content.
The difference, in my experience, is that peer review is meant to be an anonymous process. The reviewer does not know whose article they are reviewing and the reviewee does not know who is reviewing it. The intent is to maintain impartiality. As such, curators, to whom one submits a report, should not be reviewing the report. They should instead act as an intermediary between reviewer and reviewee if we are to adopt peer review of reports. Any other approach leaves the system open to criticism for potential bias. You also need to make sure that the person reviewing the report is recognised as an authority in the subject area. How do you ensure that and how large a pool of people will that leave you to undertake reviews?
'Reality,' sa molesworth 2, 'is so unspeakably sordid it make me shudder.'
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
25th November 2010, 05:00 PM
(This post was last modified: 25th November 2010, 05:02 PM by vulpes.)
Yes, you're right Odinn about the anonymity difficulty. However, in the context of county journals I'm not sure that such a complex but laudable system will ever take off although perhaps some manage it? Curator's do have a role to play, however, in that they will have followed a project through from inception often. Conversely it is very difficult for a curator to get anywhere with rejecting a report that just isn't very good/detailed/imaginative but manages to tick off agreed aims and is therefore compliant with preceding docs. The editor of the journal also plays an important role, but as a usually voluntary position their goodwill can be somewhat constrained. Food for thought though.... :face-approve:
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
25th November 2010, 05:12 PM
vulpes Wrote:Food for thought though...
Definitely food for thought. Gaining the academic credibility that a peer review system offers would be an excellent step forwards.
'Reality,' sa molesworth 2, 'is so unspeakably sordid it make me shudder.'
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2010
27th November 2010, 05:32 PM
Vulpes has a point about the 'ticking-off-the-boxes' thing, any enforced form of peer review would need to come from the curatorial end of things and be written into a scheme from the outset or no one is ever going to bother with it or fund it.
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.....
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2010
27th November 2010, 05:34 PM
.....actually I'm getting to the point where people are starting to ask me....oh dear, does that mean I'm turning into one of them...:face-crying:
Posts: 7
Threads: 3
Joined: Mar 2009
28th November 2010, 12:08 AM
in my experience, the situation dinosaur describes usually arises because the excavation brief had not been thought through, early clues missed, supervisor unwilling to rock the boat, and managers who know far to little, with executives devoid of imagination......
thus the specialist is contacted later than would be possible, and with minimal available budget - when they turn up they are blaged about the excellent standards on site (ha ha), and eventually the exercise does become a box ticker, because senior archs just want somebody to sign of the work.....
dinosaurs comments suggest that ONLY commercial archaeologists have any right to control the dissemination, interpretation, and recover of archaeology!!!!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
28th November 2010, 12:12 AM
Quote:does that mean I'm turning into one of them...
what, a blagger?! Maybe
Posts: 7
Threads: 3
Joined: Mar 2009
28th November 2010, 01:18 AM
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2010
28th November 2010, 03:51 PM
(This post was last modified: 28th November 2010, 03:54 PM by Dinosaur.)
GnomeKing Wrote:....dinosaurs comments suggest that ONLY commercial archaeologists have any right to control the dissemination, interpretation, and recover of archaeology!!!!
eerrr, did you ever actually bother to read that copyright and confidentiality clause which is (hopefully) included in whatever PD or WSI you're currently working to ? (if you're working, that is, sorry if you're not...) :face-stir: ...until the finished product's deposited with the HER and becomes a public document the commercial archaeologists (their client, actually) are usually
obliged to control the dissemination of any information - the next job I'm out on we're not allowed to discuss with the public, merely refer them to a press officer at the client...
A lot of evaluation 'trenches' and other holes being 'watched briefly' are open for an hour or two - the last hole I dug last week was heavied-out, photographed, couple of measurements, quick note of soil descriptions and backfilled ASAP before the entire universe collapsed into it - important piece of archaeology with considerable value towards current and future planning applications and archaeological interventions but hardly practical to get some 'expert' out to muse over it?
Is the Blagger's Guide to Archaeology still in print? - someone nicked mine, need to check I'm still doing it right }
Research be seen as integral to development excavation.
