A HUGE oversight/omission (in my view) is a complete lack of any sort of biographical information on the authors of the papers. What's up with that? I've never seen a journal that doesn't have some sort of blurb about the authors. How am I supposed to form an opinion about the qualifications of the authors if I have no information on them?

Did you know anything about that Bob?

Good to hear from someone not related to the ARS that it looks good.

--------------------

You'll be thrilled with yours Thomas, I'm quite sure.

--------------------

--------------------

The next issue will contain this sort of information so that interested parties may follow up with the authors or at least know their background.

This whole process has been a tremendous learning experience.

My commentary would be that the best qualification for writing a research paper would be writing a solid research paper, well footnoted, and logicaly defensible - alphabet soup at the end of a name means very little, and more than one PHD has written poor research. Heck, I know of at least one curator out there with as much (or little) academic credentials as myself.

It was my understanding that the very purpose of the society was to foster armour research, by independant scholars especially, and bring them into contact and communication with professionals in the field - it wasn't supposed to be an organ for professional scholars only. Ian Eaves told me once that the field or drive in the field is suffering from a lack of new blood, pursuing different ideas - it's my understanding that the ARS is intended to give a transfusion.

For what it's worth.

--------------------

Determining the defensibility of a paper may be easy for someone versed in a field. Unfortunately, for someone without a lot of specialized knowledge a specious argument can sound just as convincing. Knowing an author's background gives me more information on which judge what I'm reading.

You have a point. The first half of my article published in the MRS Journal was reviewed by a professional in the field (and you know him ). To the best of my knowledge my second half was not, which I was not entirely comfortable with.

There should be peer review of articles and what credentials should be known.

[ 12-05-2005: Message edited by: chef de chambre ]

--------------------

If you are making reference to the arrival of final bound copies of the Journal, I wish I could help, but the mailing was done from Illinois and I'm in Pennsylvania.

What Bob is saying is that his article in the MRS Journal (predecessor to the ARS) was reviewed by a PhD in the armour and museum community (2) if memory serves me correctly: Peer reviewed, a professional in the community.

He is wondering if his 2nd article received the same attention.

He is not expressing dissatisfaction with the Editorial aspects of his article for the ARS journal. He is well aware of your work with his article and appreciates it.

He is also agreeing with Gwen on her point that some biographical data would have been helpful for people who may not know the contributing authors.

Please don't read more into what he is saying than is actually there.

Jenn

Biographical information would have been nice. A simple footnote would have sufficed at the end of each article. I had planned on putting it in, but unfortunately I forgot to mention that to Tasha. Sorry T.

Your second article Bob, was not peer reviewed. Actually I do not think any of them were for that matter. Pierre's was done long before we asked him for one, Toby's was done more spur of the moment. Simon's was however as it was a reprint from the V&A conservation journal. Doug's had been slated to be a Kalamazoo presentation, so it probably was not reviewed either.

Actually Jenn, the MRS Journal is not really a predecessor to the ARS. It may have appeared that way, but I always had the idea of using that avenue for something in the future. As it stands now, I do intend to publish another edition. Next year if possible.

FWIW, I still have not received my journal yet either. Shocking I know... hehehehe...

quote:

---

A HUGE oversight/omission (in my view) is a complete lack of any sort of biographical information on the authors of the papers. What's up with that? I've never seen a journal that doesn't have some sort of blurb about the authors. How am I supposed to form an opinion about the qualifications of the authors if I have no information on them?

---

Haven't seen that many journals then it seems.

The Journal of the Arms & Armour Society: No information.

Arms & Armour (Royal Armouries): Not much to speak of other than a little blurb stating their title

The Park Lane Journal: Again, either no information, or extremely limited

Your point also makes me wonder if the authors should consider submitting future articles to these other, well established, highly valued journals.

I suppose my desire to know something about the people who's work I'm spending time reading is just one of the reasons I'm not a scholar.

Could you explain this? I am not quite sure how to take it.

Your point also makes me wonder if the authors should consider submitting future articles to these other, well established, highly valued journals.