It has been a while since I wrote an editorial, and some important things have happened since the last time that I did, so I thought that now might be a good opportunity to offer a few lines. First, I'm sure that readers will have noticed by now that Taylor & Francis is now our publisher. All in all, I think the transition went relatively smoothly, though there were (of course) a few hiccups for both authors and subscribers. I'm grateful for your patience in bearing with us as we sort out any problems that might have occurred. If something has gone off the rails for you in terms of a paper that you have submitted or if you are having trouble accessing something, please let me know and I will do my best to fix it as soon as possible.
More generally, I have been extremely pleased with the submissions to the journal over the last year. When we made the decision to move to a quarterly publication schedule, I had an initial moment of panic that we would not have enough papers to keep the issues flowing. I have been extremely gratified (and relieved) that we have continued to see increases in the numbers of submissions to the journal, while also maintaining very high quality. By all metrics, the journal has published more and has had a greater impact than ever before. I owe all of this to the authors, guest editors, and the referees who have made this all possible. Well done, all!
With that said, there is always room for innovation. I know that I have mentioned this repeatedly in the past, but I would like to see more diversity in the kinds of submissions that we receive. As it is, the vast majority of our papers are research articles. Of course, these are the life-blood of this and all other academic journals. Yet, other kinds of papers have important places in the broader ecosystem of archaeological publication. One variety of paper that we seldom see is the synthetic review. I would be the first to acknowledge that writing one of these papers is a laborious and thankless job, and it often does not seem worth the trouble in the moment. But once published, these papers help the community of scholars focus their attention on particular research problems and move the field forward. For Lithic Technology, review papers could be focused on geographical regions, time periods, technological strategies, theoretical traditions, and a wide range of other themes. In a perfect world, I would like to see one review paper in each regular issue of the journal. Therefore, I encourage you to consider writing and submitting such a paper and I will also begin strategically targeting some of you for this task (like it, or not!).
Next, I would like to start a new tradition at Lithic Technology of reviewing the lithics-related papers at the Society for American Archaeology (SAA) meetings (and perhaps other conferences). I was reminded once again in Orlando that so many fine presentations about lithic analysis are made every year at the SAAs; someone who would systematically (stay awake and) review the lithics presentations the SAAs would be doing our journal a great service indeed. Thus, if you would like to summarize and comment upon the “state of the art” in stone tool research at the SAA meetings in Vancouver in 2017, please contact me. I will award this burden on a first-come, first-serve basis, and I may ask several folks to collaborate in this considerable effort. In addition, volunteers for other conferences are also welcome.
Finally, it has also been a long time since we have had a contribution dealing with the non-academic knapping world. There are, of course, dozens of knap-ins and other knapping events around the world. These are not often attended by academic archaeologists, although they should be. Non-academic knappers and others with avocational interests in the archaeology of stone tools have much to contribute to this journal. If nothing else, it would be nice to have an annotated calendar of knapping events that could at least alert our readers to interesting things happening in nearby locations. Beyond this, I would love to see more papers bringing to bear the vast body of knowledge present within the non-academic knapping community.
In closing, let me again express my gratitude to everyone who has contributed to the journal in one way or another since my last editorial. Your hard work is very much appreciated and I look forward to hearing from you in the future. Thank you again for your patience in dealing with our transition and please keep us in mind for your next paper!