Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Gavin Richardson, post: 2702837, member: 83956&quot;]I&#039;ve written both for a classics academic journal (<i>Vergilius</i>) and for the less formal <i>Celator</i>. It seems that Nicholas&#039;s proposal might help foster better relationships between collectors and academics. </p><p><br /></p><p>To me, one of the distinctions between the collector&#039;s insight and the professional academic&#039;s insight is simply the bibliographical &quot;legwork&quot; that has to be done to publish in a scholarly journal; i.e., making sure you don&#039;t accidentally reproduce an argument that was buried in that 19th-century German text you didn&#039;t know existed.</p><p><br /></p><p>As for raw insight, I can&#039;t imagine many academics who have more ready knowledge about ancient coins than, say, Doug Smith. Atherton on the Flavians. Victor Clark (who has a history M.A.) on Constantine. I&#039;d love to see more collaboration between the two communities; i.e., interesting insights and questions emerging from collectors, with scholars bringing their bibliographical and research expertise to bear in exploring answers and possibilities to those questions. I&#039;d love, for example, to see more co-written projects.</p><p><br /></p><p>As for review, I think blind peer review is best. I&#039;d be uncomfortable with a journal in which each author suggested his or her own reviewers. That would not ensure a high quality of research, IMHO. I enjoyed the <i>Celator </i>as much as anyone, but quite frankly, some bad information appeared in its pages simply because the operation just wasn&#039;t set up for significant review.</p><p><br /></p><p>My 2 denarii.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in