In introducing this issue of Lithic Technology, I wanted to begin by saying that it is my pleasure to introduce our new book review editor, Shane Miller, who will also join our editorial board. Shane has been an assistant professor in the Department of Anthropology and Middle Eastern Cultures at Mississippi State University since 2014, with primary research interests in the lithic technology of hunter–gatherers in the Southeastern USA. I am extremely excited to work with Shane during his upcoming term and I know he cannot wait to receive your book reviews. I also wanted to take this opportunity to once again thank Metin Eren, who stepped down from this position recently after several years of energetic and meritorious service. Finally, I also wanted to briefly remind our readers that those goodly souls interested in reviewing a book for Lithic Technology should contact Shane ([email protected]). Book reviews constitute an important part of this journal and we look forward to getting them soon.
Some Brief Thoughts on Peer Review
While I have the chance, I also wanted to offer some brief thoughts on the lifeblood of this and all other academic journals: scholarly peer review. This is the most selfless and often the most thankless task in which we engage routinely as scholars. Peer referees frequently make crucial contributions to the content of publications, all the while remaining anonymous. Most journals, including this one, have very little to offer our referees as compensation in spite of the considerable amount of time it takes to do these sorts of things. No one ever got a raise, made tenure, or was promoted because they were regarded as a particularly good peer referee for manuscripts under consideration for journal publication. Yet, Lithic Technology (and all other reputable journals) simply would not exist without referees. Thus, I wanted to begin by thanking everyone who has served as a referee for the journal in the past and all those who will do so in the future. I, at least, recognize and deeply appreciate all of your hard work.
Philosophically, I have tried to arrange referees for our manuscripts across the entire spectrum of professional involvement and at all career stages. Lithic Technology is the journal for which many young scholars have the opportunity to review their first papers and I am proud of this. I reviewed my first paper for this journal and the experience was an important one for me. It underscored for me that I was a part of a greater community, which collaborates in gaining and spreading archaeological knowledge. This is a powerful moment for young scholars and I am happy that this one of the strengths of the journal. At the same time, we also rely heavily on more senior scholars, whose accumulated wisdom is profoundly important in guiding the revision and publication processes. This is especially true of the many distinguished scholars who have published in this journal since its inception and whose work as both authors and referees has kept it going all these years.
At this point, I wanted to point out some trends having to do with the journal that bear on the peer review process. For one thing, our rate of submission has increased dramatically since I took over in 2011. Moving to a quarterly publication schedule reflects this and I cannot say enough about how gratified I am to see all of the wonderful submissions that have come in recently. As far as I can tell, this raises only one problem: The work load for our referees has increased enormously. Since we need at least two referees for each manuscript, every time our submission rate doubles, the number of required referees more than quadruples. The other trend having to do with the journal is the increasing frequency of technically specialized papers requiring concomitant specialty on the part of our referees. On the one hand, I am extremely gratified to see lithic analysis blossom in terms of our available technical methods and analytical technologies. It is tremendously exciting for me every time I get the chance to read about something new. On the other hand, this trend makes it hard to find qualified referees, as the pool of individuals with expertise in particular technical approaches is often fairly small (at least for the time being). Finally, I really try not wear out particular individual referees. Even though there are many workhorses who would seem to gladly review any and all manuscripts I send their way (and I appreciate that enormously), this is not a good idea for many reasons. For one thing, it is not tremendously democratic to have a large number of our papers reviewed by a small and select pool of referees. For another thing, it is not fair to these individuals to have to shoulder the burden of our peer review process.
For the first time in my editorship, and likely for the first time in the history of the journal, we have begun to have difficulty in finding qualified and willing referees for some of our papers. Here, I would point out that we are not like some of what I might call the “mega-journals” in the field of archaeology, which use automated algorithms to generate lists of referees. I personally spend considerable time combing references and thinking about how to match up a manuscript with the right referee, who will offer the best commentary possible for optimizing the outcomes of our publications. What I am driving at is that I need your help in dealing with this growing set of problems.
Now, my purpose here is not to chastise anyone who has turned me down in the recent past. I know people are busy and I recognize the thanklessness of this job relative to those others upon which we are actually evaluated in our various professional lives. My point here is simply to make everyone aware and to state on the record that finding referees has become a little bit of problem. I need your help and, if I ask to you serve as a referee, there is a thought-out human-generated reason for it. Furthermore, let me promise that your generosity with your time will not be forgotten.
In closing, let me reiterate how grateful I am to all of our referees- past, present, and future. In addition, especially if you have served as a referee for us, I hope you will consider sending your next lithics paper to us! As always, it is my pleasure to receive and read your work, and I look forward to seeing your next papers soon.