Harrison Eiteljorg II and I have launched a forum to discuss our project on web publishing aimed squarely at archaeologists. We have published in the CSA newsletter four articles on the subjects, and we presented our project in front of a sizeable audience in Oslo, at the 17th EAA annual meeting. There was much discussion about it there. I summarise here a few points:
- it was suggested that purpose-built websites based may help archaeologists reaching the Web. In particular, could provide a good framework to start publishing data. It was emphasised the necessity for linking to social media.
--My personal stance on this is that each team should publish their data as best as possible, with websites following standards and guidelines, but adapted to the necessities coming from individual projects. Each project is unique. I also do not believe in social media to publish data. These sites are great to communicate, and it is easy to set up personal or project-wide pages on the social media of the moment. Social media create separate networks however, and their ethos is in open contrast with publication. A paper circulated among friends within a social media network is not a published paper, or one accessible to all, even if registration is cost-free.
- It was mentioned that Britain, the Netherlands and other countries are publishing local field projects in national online archives. These are pre-designed and funded. Archaeologists need only to follow simple guidelines.
--Such archives are a boon for "grey literature" (i.e. reports from commercial archaeological units), but they are unsuitable for larger research projects. Restrictions in how or what is being published to comply with pre-defined guidelines written by people without a background in archaeology makes them unsuitable to present or preserve the appropriate materials (e.g. illustrated PDF reports may replace high resolution images or national languages such as Dutch may restrict the audience).
- There was agreement in recognising online publications positively in terms of ease of access, but poorly in terms of prestige (or consideration from peers, especially for promotions, tenure etc.) for those publishing them.
--There is no easy way to solve this. Archaeologists should do their best to publish online following guidelines made by themselves to suit their data, as it is the case for printed publications. Once high quality online publications become available, then there will be a case for rewarding the authors with appropriate appreciation, including academic appreciation. As it is, online publishing seems the inescapable future following commercial trends, but archaeologists are vastly unprepared for the transition, and mostly resistant to any transition. This will only put archaeology even more out of touch from the public and public funders, which might see archaeology as a costly exercise organised by a restricted circle of people aimed at pleasing themselves.
- There was apparent confusion (or unawareness) among the audience about the fact that online publishing does not translate automatically into PDF or some other specific format.
--Online publishing opens up new ways of presenting data, as well as new challenges to preserve them. Websites are not used mainly for presenting data (as some sort of PowerPoint presentation): they can be used to produce serious publications, in new formats. Students already expect much of their coursework and textbooks to be online, and future readers will expect publications to be accessible online, with native digital formats. Many archaeologists see websites as the place to republish their printed materials, but really do not know what Web publishing is and may be very unfamiliar with current commercial eBooks and the new tools they make available. To solve this problem, archaeologists need to do some reading and get some information.
I hope that the discussion will grow this list of comments. Don't be shy, speak up your ideas people, even if they are only brief comments. Web publishing isn't an idea of two nerdy archaeologists, it is the future for all of us! It is something happening whether we like it or not, and it would be nice to hear more voices and try to affect constructively where we are going, instead of sheepishly looking forward to the day that we will be given prepared guidelines to be followed by our funders.