tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post7460925155839466011..comments2024-03-28T11:48:17.788-07:00Comments on Publishing Archaeology: What if you published an article, but nobody read it?Michael E. Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03942595266312225661noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post-36030889640327437412010-04-09T02:54:46.695-07:002010-04-09T02:54:46.695-07:00I refer to one of your articles in my own critique...I refer to one of your articles in my own critique of cosmological modelling in Mayanist studies: <br /><br />Normark, Johan<br />2008.The triadic causeways of Ichmul: virtual highways becoming actual roads. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 18(2):215-237.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post-57941750980536589662010-03-14T01:15:04.061-07:002010-03-14T01:15:04.061-07:00As journals have gone electronic, perhaps they sho...As journals have gone electronic, perhaps they should offer an ego-stroking service to their contributors. Authors could receive an email everytime anyone accessed the full text of their article.<br /><br />I do understand the need to know if people are actually reading and using the works we produce. Our work is pointless if nobody can use it.<br /><br />FashpoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post-74361352150604434362010-03-12T11:35:09.406-07:002010-03-12T11:35:09.406-07:00Jerry- Sorry, I didn't mean to leave out your...Jerry- Sorry, I didn't mean to leave out your published reply to the first paper, which is interesting and useful:<br /><br /> Ashmore, Wendy, and Jeremy A. Sabloff (2003) Interpreting Ancient Maya City Plans: Reply to Smith. Latin American Antiquity 14:229-236.<br /><br />What I was puzzling over was the lack of subsequent references to the papers or to that exchange. Why haven't we seen things like, "Smith's argument was effectively refuted by Ashmore and Sabloff", or, "Ashore and Sabloff did not succeed in countering Smith's critique." Perhaps people have just lost interest in the topic, I don't know.Michael E. Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03942595266312225661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post-30520964446306182292010-03-12T09:50:17.430-07:002010-03-12T09:50:17.430-07:00Mike -- you might point out that Wendy Ashmore and...Mike -- you might point out that Wendy Ashmore and I did reply in print to your article. Even if we did not agree, we certainly didn't ignore your criticisms. <br /> I enjoy your blog. Thanks!Jerry Sabloffnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post-84642506797508461882010-03-12T08:51:33.433-07:002010-03-12T08:51:33.433-07:00for Keith Lilley: Thank you for your comment. You ...for Keith Lilley: Thank you for your comment. You are absolutely right. This is an example of the down side of blogging - I fire something off half-cocked, without pausing to reflect. I do, in fact, intend to look at the book; my quip about skipping the book was intended as a clever phrase, not an accurate statement of intention. I own your book, Urban Life in the Middle Ages, and think it is the best book by far on the topic, and I also have copies of 6 or 8 of your papers, which I like very much. My colleagues in anthropological archaeology tend to be very parochial about comparative urbanism and urban theory, and so I often recommend your work to them.<br /><br />So, I do look forward to reading the book. I am a big fan of Amos Rapoport's work on high-level meaning, but I have been told by medievalists that his notions do not work well for many aspects of medieval architecture and urbanism. I look forward to learning more on this.<br /><br />I sometimes wish there were venues where people could argue over intellectual issues, but more formal and professional than blogs, but more timely than journals. Anyway, I appreciate your comment and I apologize for my half-baked remarks.Michael E. Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03942595266312225661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post-37164145003585742312010-03-12T06:25:34.366-07:002010-03-12T06:25:34.366-07:00The review by Nicholas of 'City and Cosmos'...The review by Nicholas of 'City and Cosmos' requires some context - I would urge you to read the book first rather than the review, and you'll see there that the evidence I put forward is rather more compelling than Nicholas would give me credit for. Besides, how do you know that "such a feature would make almost no difference in the lives of the people who lived in the cities"? The evidence is there: please read the book!Keith Lilleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post-4929279030105503942010-03-12T00:31:24.844-07:002010-03-12T00:31:24.844-07:00I wonder if the lack of citation stems from the vi...I wonder if the lack of citation stems from the visibility of the Ashmore and Sabloff paper, at least in terms of citations; ISI Web of Science finds just over 1/3 as many citations for your 2003 paper as the Ashmore 2002 paper. A cursory examination of a few other papers with specific (non-letter) replies/comments found this fall off was about average (highest reply:original percentage was just over 50%, smallest was 3%). <br /><br />That doesn't invalidate the point, of course. It is a curious pattern, however, that critiques are so rarely cited.Hanshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09909606839456243087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post-91236908905155195502010-03-11T14:01:13.219-07:002010-03-11T14:01:13.219-07:00If it makes you feel any better, we read both of t...If it makes you feel any better, we read both of the <i>Latin American Antiquity</i> articles in my landscape archaeology seminar, along with Ashmore, Aveni, Wheatley, and that <i>Cambridge Archaeological Journal</i> issue with the articles on planned cities. I bet if you could track your citation rate in graduate class papers, your numbers would go up.Jason Urhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03979363157815514128noreply@blogger.com