|

FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY LACKS A

VALID SCIENTIFIC PUBLISHING PROTOCOL

B. W. Powell

Abstract:

Archeology is a science. Science presumes open exchange. Typically today this is via the “literature.” FAS (ostensibly) sponsors such a medium: The Florida Anthropologist. A widespread if not universal procedure in scientific publishing (any field) is to submit a draft for consideration to a given organization Editor or Editorial Board and/or its (presumed) impartial advisors. After a presumed reading (but certainly not before!), authors are then advised as to acceptance; rejection (where relations are cordial, this might presume brief characterization of reasons); or acceptance-with-recommendation- or-edit.

That this procedure is not in effect at FAS, or that it specifically was not invoked in one case (my own) … as detailed… follows.

To my way of thinking, the natural and manmade phenomena of this world studied by historians and scientists are the property of all, the private “mental domains” of none. As one more than passingly familiar with the “rights” of scientific publishing, I of course recognize the problems of plagerism, and of proprietary rights to formulae, and certain commercially valuable scientific finds in some fields of science. Nor do I question the “rights” of team leaders and directors to primary authorship of main “interpretations” of projects and reports.

But such is not the issue here.

The issue, simply, is that of being first, discouraged as to submission of comment on a public not a private, Florida archeological “dig” of which I was a bona fide participant, and second, being denied even initial reading of draft for evaluation by the Editor and/or any reviewing parties (not those at interest!), in response to several subsequently published papers in FA, which I document below.

This event calls seriously into question the validity and practices of the FAS publishing program, at least as to exchange of scientific views, if this is the intent of this organization.

Background:

The chance find and investigation, late in 1998 and the early months of 1999, of the so-called “Miami Circle” or sometimes “Miami Stone Circle” (8/DA/12) in the heart of downtown Miami, FL is well and widely known (cf. numerous accounts pop-press Miami Herald of that period, world and national press, numerous websites, and FAS Journal 53, No. 4, December 2000, as referenced previously). As one of the original excavating team, I participated in this “dig” for about six months, until it was closed (the first time) by Court order.

Later in 1999, on hearing that FAS Journal was planning to publish some of “…the first scientific reports” (as it itself was to refer to them later) on the site, I made query as to whether the Editor would be receptive to a short comment from me, to be informed in turn that the “bulletin was already full,” and there was no more space available. Nevertheless, this “full” Bulletin, under date of issuance of December 2000 (yet the following year), was not to appear till sometime even post that date. I am more than sympathetic to the problems of issuance and printing by non-professional staffs, common with smaller “scientific” bodies, etc. Still the “lead time” here for a journal declared “full” months and months preceding seems extreme.

But this is not the issue either.

It was with great interest I read the accounts of “… the first scientific discussion of the Circle and its context.” (Editor’s Page, ibid.) on this interesting site. Of six articles (not all by individuals who dug at the site, I might add), four contained (or omitted) statements about either matters-of-fact or just material points of interest, if you like, to which I felt response was indicated. And this I did in a “compound” rejoinder: (NB: Some Comments on ‘Special Issue: The Miami Circle') the length being the product of a reply to four, and not just one paper….

That it may be overly long, or that it might profit from talented editing, is again not the issue: the issue is simply that the editor (cf. Appendix for verbatim correspondences) never has read it yet, nor would he offer the rather standard assurance that parties-at-interest in the papers would not also be the judges of a submission which might refer to said papers, which is only to be assumed elsewhere (and wanted only his assurance here), adding further that he was confused as to what or whom a “principal” or party-at-interest might be (?) in the authorship of a contributed paper… His only suggestion in the end was that perhaps I might want to first review all my ideas (!) and any comments with the onetime Dig Director – which of course, and under the circumstances, was irrelevant, as these were rejoinders for the open literature and not “de novo” theses of some kind needing a blessing from on high. My comments and my support for same can sink or swim on their own merits. As can those about which I raise some question.

Thus the matter rested.

And thus I have elected to post my rejoinder – in entirity – on my own pages here. And there it will stay for reference by all, and specifically any who are interested in affairs pertaining to work, and to prior published statements about the Miami Circle.

And with this further provision: unlike the FAS publishing protocol – which I allege is invalid – I welcome all comment that may be submitted to posting here – both as response to content and allegations of said rejoinder itself, and even as to the propriety of my making public what I consider to be a dereliction in FAS publishing protocol in the first place. If I am wrong, then I am wrong in some sense, and those who disagree assume the burden to show how or in what way (sense) that I am then wrong. And if I am right, they might acknowledge that also…

All signed posts will be posted unedited and in full. Vulgarities alone will be deleted in the interest of taste and liability. You are invited to an open forum of exchange on these matters, including the scientific ones at issue, and are encouraged to submit your best documentation for anything you say, allege, or believe.

There will be no apriori turn-downs of submissions or comment, and no muffling of voices, at this end.

B. W. Powell
North Miami Beach
Date

Appendix

(Chronologically ordered below, are verbatim copies of the correspondence whereby I sought to make contribution in form of a “rejoinder” to several papers in the December 2000 FA. I had been discouraged as an original contributor on the grounds that the issue was “all filled up” at the time I first inquired (a year preceding). The letters here concern my interest in response to several of those papers – as they finally appeared. All boldface is mine.)

                                    September 6, 2001                                         Bx xxx
                                    xxxx N.E. 163rd St.
                                    North Miami Beach, FL
                                    33160
Ryan J. Wheeler, Ed.
THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST
POB 6356
Tallahassee, FL
32314-6356

Dear Ryan:

I have now had a chance to review Vol. 53, No. 4, December 2000 issue of the journal which is the Special Issue on The Miami Circle. And found the several articles therein stimulating and interesting. I was wondering at this time if it might be possible to respond to some of these, drawing upon my own experience as a member of the original excavating group? If so, how might this best be done?

That is, I am more familiar with refereed journals and formats based either on “letters to the editor” columns or specific rejoinder formats to authors. I don’t see exactly this in the ‘Anthropologist’, but as you characterize the volume as serving as the “first scientific discussion of the Circle and its context” (Editor’s Page), presumably its pages are open for comment on the published material therein.

My comments (not all that extensive) would be limited to just four of the six articles (the one by Eck, and that by Means, et al being of no concern to me). Responding to each alone seems rather ponderous: if agreeable to you I would just do this as one general rejoinder – making it clear as to which author, item or issue I was addressing. This could be done sans graphics, though if you were receptive there might be several relevant such that I could submit.

As I say, in the formal literature this is sometimes followed later (or not) by an original author’s response (if any), and then that ends it. Whether this is your style in ‘Anthropologist’ or not I cannot determine. Perhaps you could favor me with your advices.

Yours truly,

B. W. Powell


RYAN J. WHEELER, EDITOR
THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST
P.O. BOX 6356
TALLAHASSEE, FL 32314-6356
PHONE: (850) 309-0625

October 1, 2001

Bernie Powell
Box XXX
XXXX NE 163rd Street
North Miami Beach, FL 33160

Dear Bemie,

Thank you for your letter and your continued interest in the Miami Circle. We
historically have not had "letters to the editor" sections or the type of format often found
in American Anthropologist, where readers respond to articles and author's respond to
reader's comments. This is not to say that we cannot do this, however.

Keep in mind that all articles appearing in The Florida Anthropologist are reviewed by
members of the Review Board or others knowledgeable in specific fields. I think we
have avoided the (type?) of comments and rejoinders that I describe above due to the bad
feelings that these can sometimes engender. We try to keep the journal a friendly
environment so that more people will contribute articles.

We are planning another issue dedicated to the Circle for late next year. This issue will
have reports on some of the analyses that are currently underway on materials from the
site. Perhaps you could have a contribution in that issue that addresses your observations.
If you submit a manuscript, it will be reviewed by several people and you will get review
comments and suggestions for revisions.

I hope this is helpful. Let me know what you would like to do.

Sincerely,


Ryan J. Wheeler

                                    October 6, 2001

                                XXX XXXXXXX Drive
                                    #XXX
                                    North Miami Beach, FL
33160
Ryan J. Wheeler, Editor
The Florida Anthropologist
P.O. Box 6356
Tallahassee, FL 32314-6356

Dear Ryan:

Further to yours of October 1st, yes - I would be interested in contributing along the lines you mention in your letter, provided you can assure me that the contents of my contribution will not either 1) be “circulated” widely before acceptance is determined, and that 2) in any event, said reviewers not to include any principals at interest – again prior to acceptance.

My concern here, as I know you can appreciate, is just that of any researcher anywhere - concerned for the fruits of his own mind and for data analysis and other matters of his own creation. Other than that, I would be pleased to submit a draft for consideration. (One way many journals “protect” contributions is to have them submitted as copyrighted material, which upon acceptance, the copyright is just dropped and reverts to the publication in question automatically).

I appreciate your position and the many pressures undoubtedly brought to bear upon you: I was for some years the editor of the Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Connecticut, and have dealt with my share of prima donnas in my time! That and my long association with science publishing generally, convinced me that if it is truly science which is at stake, then that takes precedence over “personalities.” There is however, again, absolutely no excuse ever for ad hominems and personal attacks. All that counts are the facts, and one must sink or swim and take his licks, according to how he calls them.

Best,

Bernie Powell

PS-

I have some graphics I have done to support and clarify points of serious disagreement I have with some interpretations offered in your Special Issue in re basin origins and configurations at 8/DA/12. I have printed out one here for your interest (I only have a dated b&w printer, so quality is rather low). They would be available for instant reference in their original size and clarity at an online site.


RYAN J. WHEELER, EDITOR
THE FLORIDA ANTHROPLOGIST
P.O. BOX 6356
TALLAHASSEE, FL 32314-6356
PHONE: (850) 309-0625

October 30, 2001

Bernie Powell
XXXXXXX Drive #XXX
North Miami Beach, FL 33160

Dear Bernie,

Thank you for your last letter and offer to write about the Miami Circle. I was a little
surprised about the conditions that you were suggesting. If I receive a manuscript from
you it will be subject to review like all other manuscripts. Reviewers knowledgeable
about your subject will be invited to provide comments. I am not sure who you consider
the "principals" to be. I guess I am one, since I have been involved with the project and
am working on other articles about the site.

Your example is interesting, since it was my suggestion that the north and south half of
the Circle were a sort of "mirror image" of one another. This was merely a general
observation of the arrangement of the large and small basins, and not a suggestion that
there was a one to one correspondence. The arrangement does demonstrate a certain
aesthetic and intentioned plan on the part of the Circle's makers. While critical thinking
is certainly part of scholarship, some of your criticisms may be a little too picky.

I would like to refer you to discuss your ideas for an article with Bob Carr. He is the
Miami Circle project director, and it is his place to invite authors to participate in the
project and in a special issue of the journal.

Thank you again for your interest.

Sincerely,


Ryan J. Wheeler


November 29, 2001
                               
Box XXX
                                XXXX N.E. 163rd St.
                                North Miami Beach, FL 33160
                               
Ryan J. Wheeler, Editor
THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST
P.O. Box 6356
Tallahassee, FL 32314-6356

Dear Ryan:

I wanted to respond to your last letter to me, of October 30th, in re my interest in submitting a single combined rejoinder to several papers published in the December 2000 Special Issue which was devoted to the Miami Circle. I agree after reading your misgivings and all, that I would rather – and shall – seek exposure elsewhere for these views. Since they are to papers, authors, and views set forth, however, in a former issue of your Journal, it had seemed the most logical medium in which to first respond.

I would like however, if I might, to provide some insight into the “whys” of my decision to withdraw at this time, and why certain of your suggestions are not acceptable. There is nothing peculiar at all, in my view, for a potential author to make inquiry in scientific publishing as to the terms of any required copy review before acceptance, and how said reviews are conducted by the publication in question. Nor do I understand your mystification over whom I might consider a “principal” as referred to in my letter. I consider a principal in this (these) cases to be just the same as anyone else would so consider to be a principal: the author or authors themselves, who would not be expected to “sit in judgment” on submitted rejoinders to their own work (in any reputable journal that I know of). Yes, you would be considered such a principal, as you wonder in your letter, in the case of your own article on the site that is, and would presumably in all honesty have to excuse yourself from such review, as would any of the other “principals” to whose work I might comment upon individually or particularly as to their published views. If you cannot or do not extend this basic courtesy to authors, then that is your affair.

There is nothing I say, mysterious about this at all (to me). It goes without saying, of course, that any other competent reviewer(s) you or your staff (?) might have selected would be more than acceptable. The aim of it all, is just to prevent “parties at interest” (i.e., same as “principals”) from short-circuiting free exchange of ideas and comment – vital to progress in real science, and this just does not seem an odd query to me at all in a scientific publication.

Also, in a previous letter you thanked me for my “…continued interest in the Miami Circle”. I have no reason to suppose you meant it this way, but this has a rather proprietary ring to it. I am not “interested” in the Circle by anyone else’s leave (for much the same reason, I decline your suggestion also to first discuss all my ideas with Mr. Robert Carr, the onetime director of the initial dig). I consider myself an independent researcher in science, and sink or swim on the presentation and defense of my own ideas – honestly set forth to unbiased readers – about any and all public phenomena that might attract my interest.. To “direct” a dig is not to “own” a dig or ideas or comments about it. I must be doing something right: I have published over 25 site reports and other papers in the past 40 years, in regional archeological journals, as well as American Antiquity, Science, and other major pubs.

As to the “mirror image” issue – of which I sent you a copy of one graphic analysis I have prepared here solely by way of interest, and which I would now appreciate your destroying from your files, please – it is not at all clear from the aforementioned Dec. 2000 journal and its several articles, that this mirror “view” of the Circle basins is your suggestion (the presentation in these pages at least bears the names of three other authors, in fact). Be that as it may, and as you offer that while “…critical thinking is certainly part of scholarship, some of your criticisms may be a little too picky…”, it is hard to see how you would know or be able to decide that, never having heard, seen, or read them! I might add that as you have characterized your group of articles as “…the first scientific discussion of the Circle and its context,” (Editor’s Page, Dec. 2000), I can only wonder at your characterization of your mirror view as an “… aesthetic and intentioned plan” by its makers, and wonder how this aesthetic surmise is more scientific than “being picky”? (Mercury’s line of apsides was discovered by carrying out calculations to the 14th decimal place, a most commendable “pickiness” in the views of many observers). But as you have indicated, a presentation of my views before your readers would not seem to meet your editorial goals or needs. So be it.

It remains, however, to observe that as concerns my views, that I, like anyone else – including your several published “principals” - am simply either right or I am wrong, and I am content to abide by whatever critique is brought to bear ultimately upon my views by qualified readers – but only after they are published, and not before.

Sincerely,


Bernie Powell

| Some Comments on ‘Special Issue: The Miami Circle' | Supplemental Graphics |

| Home | Archeology