Fellow HistArchers:
I wrote my sermon yesterday and rather than debate semantics
(readability, dumbing down), I thought I would share my approach to
sharing useful information.

First and foremost, I write a technical report--generally reviewed by a
government agency for sufficiency--in which I report details of method,
technique, and findings. These are limited distribution documents,
rarely exceeding a half-dozen printed copies. I hope they ae some
interest to reviewers and fellow researchers, and I try to make them as
enjoyable to read as possible, but they are technical and legal
documents.

Second, if I find something that I think worth sharing--some insight
into things historical, cultural, genealogical, environmental, etc.--I
publish one or more papers that summarize relevant portions of the
technical report and explore the significance of the findings. Some of
these publications aim at regional, national, or international
professional audiences because I think the papers have something to say
to those audiences. Others aim at local and regional general or special
interest audiences and appear in local weeklies or historical or
archaeological society journals; again, because I think those papers
have something to say to those audiences.

The latter publications convey information and ideas that I think are
important and worth my audiences' consideration. They convey the full
complexity of ideas in the clearest, most elegant manner. Where they
fail, if they fail, the blame falls on my miscalculation or inability,
not on any effort to oversimplify. All of these publications, through
foot/endnotes or bibliographic sections, cite related publications and
documents, including the technical report and its location in which the
material originally appeared.

And now a brief sermon:

It is my personal policy not to publish anything unless I can cite the
original technical report in the publication. It is my hope that this
will someday become editorial policy for all of the profession's
peer-reviewed journals. Publication of a piece in a general audience or
professional journal does not absolve us of our responsibility to
prepare technical reports. And preparation of technical reports does not
absolve us of our ethical responsibility to disseminate that which we
learn through the use of public resources, including funds and
archaeological resources. Moreover, I distrust any publication--general
or professional--that is not firmly based on a properly prepared
technical report.

Jim Gibb
Annapolis, MD USA