Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Sanctioned Inequity and Accessibility Issues in the Grey Literature in the United States

  • RESEARCH
  • Published:
Archaeologies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The so-called gray literature is a recognized category of publication the world over but for a variety of reasons it is viewed as a substandard source of scholarly information. This literature facilitates multi-vocality in a profession that is split between those who dominate power roles, educational outlets, and publication venues and those who are in-the-trench practitioners who generate voluminous amounts of material. Taken less seriously by those who incorrectly suggest that reports are not peer reviewed or are inaccessible, these sources will be more widely cited if those outside the specific report-producing communities understand how to access them and understand their scholarly responsibility to do so.

Résumé

La littérature dite grise est une catégorie de publication reconnue dans le monde entier mais qui, pour diverses raisons, est considérée comme une source d’information spécialisée inférieure. Cette littérature facilite la multivocalité dans une profession qui est partagée entre ceux qui dominent les rôles du pouvoir, l’éducation et les lieux de publication, et les professionnels de terrain qui produisent de grandes quantités d’informations. Moins prises au sérieux par ceux qui suggèrent incorrectement que les rapports ne sont pas examinés par des pairs ou sont inaccessibles, ces sources d’information seront plus largement citées si ceux qui sont en dehors des milieux spécifiques de production des rapports savent comment les utiliser et comprennent leur responsabilité scientifique de le faire.

Resumen

La llamada literatura gris es una categoría de publicación reconocida en todo el mundo, aunque por una serie de razones, se considera una fuente de información académica inferior. Esta literatura facilita la multi-vocalidad en una profesión que se encuentra dividida entre aquellos que dominan las esferas de poder, los centros educativos y los centros de publicación y aquellos que son practicantes «en las trincheras» y que generan cantidades voluminosas de material. Tomada con poca seriedad por aquellos que erróneamente sugieren que los informes no están revisados por los colegas o que son inaccesibles, estas fuentes se citarían más ampliamente si quienes se encuentran fuera de las comunidades específicas de elaboración de informes supieran cómo acceder a ellas y comprendieran su responsabilidad académica al hacerlo.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References Cited

  • Alberani, Vilma, De Castro, Paolo 2001. Grey Literature: From the York Seminar (UK) of 1978 to the Year 2000. INSPEL 35(4):236–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Antelman, Kristin 2004. Do Open-Access Articles have a Greater Research Impact? College and Research Libraries 65(5):372–382.

    Google Scholar 

  • Archaeological Institute of America. 2009. American Journal of Archaeology. http://ajaonline.org/, accessed 12 November 2009.

  • Ardener, Shirley 1978. Introduction. In Defining Females, edited by Shirley Ardner, pp. 9–48. Wiley, New York.

  • Armstrong, J. Scott 1997. Peer Review for Journals: Evidence on Quality Control, Fairness, and Innovation. Science and Engineering Ethics 3(1):63–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aitchison, Kenneth 2009. Standards and Guidance in Archaeological Archiving: The Work of the Archaeological Archives Forum and the Institute for Archaeologists. In Archaeology and the Grey Literature, edited by Deni J. Seymour, pp. 67–71 (The Grey Journal 5(2):63–110).

  • Athens, J. S. 1993. Cultural Resource Management and Academic Responsibility in Archaeology: A Further Comment. SAA Bulletin 11(2):6–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Auger, Charles P. (1989) Information Sources in Grey Literature, Bowker-SaurLondon.,

    Google Scholar 

  • Banks, Marcus A. 2005. Towards a Continuum of Scholarship: The Eventual Collapse of the Distinction Between Grey and Non-Grey Literature. Paper presented at “GL 7”. PowerPoint Presentation, http://www.greynet.org/images/GL7_Banks.ppt (also in Farace, D (editor) Proceedings Conference on Grey Literature No 7, Nancy, France).

  • Banks, Marcus A. 2006. Towards a Continuum of Scholarship: The Eventual Collapse of the Distinction Between Grey and Nongrey Literature. Publishing Research Quarterly 22(1 March):4–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banks, Marcus A. 2006. Implications of Copyright Evolution for the Future of Scholarly Communication and Grey Literature. Paper presented at “GL (Grey Literature) 8”, New Orleans.

  • Bastian, Beverly E., Bergstrom, Randolph 1993. Reviewing Gray Literature: Drawing Public History’s Most Applied Works out of the Shadows. The Public Historian 15(2):63–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beaudry, Mary C. (2009) Ethical Issues in Historical Archaeology. In International Handbook of Historical Archaeologypp. 17–29, edited by T Majewskiand D Gaimster, Springer Science and Business MediaLLC.,

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bendey, R. Alexander 2006. Academic Copying, Archaeology and the English Language. Antiquity 80(307):196–201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradley, Richard 2006. Bridging the Two Cultures—Commercial Archaeology and the Study of Prehistoric Britain. The Antiquaries Journal 86(1):1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2008. National Employment Matrix, Employment by Industry, Occupation, and Percent Distribution, 2006 and Projected 2016, 19-3091, Anthropologists and Archaeologists. Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2008–2009 Edition, Social Scientists, Other, http://archaeology.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=archaeology&cdn=education&tm=25&gps=57_116_1089_823&f=00&tt=13&bt=0&bts=0&zu=http%3A//www.bls.gov/oco/ocos054.htm.

  • Campanario, J. M. 1995. On Influential Books and Journal Articles Initially Rejected Because of Negative Referees’ Evaluations. Science Communication 16(3):304–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Canouts, Valetta 1994. Promoting Communication. In Archaeology and the Federal Government. CRM Online 17(6), http://crm.cr.nps.gov/archive/17-6/17-6-8.pdf.

  • Council for British Archaeology 1999. From the Ground up–The Publication of Archaeological Projects: A User Needs Survey, http://www.britarch.ac.uk/pubs/puns/survey.html, accessed 1 November 2009.

  • Council for British Archaeology 1996–2009. Internet Archaeology, http://intarch.ac.uk/, accessed 1 November 2009.

  • Dalton, Margaret Stieg, Charnigo, Laurie 2004. Historians and Their Information Sources. College and Research Libraries 65(5):400–425.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeCastro, Paolo, Salinetti, Sandra. 2004. Quality of Grey Literature in the Open Access Era: Privilege and Responsibility. Publishing Research Quarterly 20(1):4–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delamothe, Tony, Smith, Richard 1999. Moving Beyond Journals: The Future Arrives With a Crash. BMJ 318:1637–1639.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falkingham, Gail 2005. A Whiter Shade of Grey: A New Approach to Archaeological Grey Literature using the XML Version of the TEI Guidelines. Internet Archaeology, http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue17/falkingham_index.html.

  • Flannery, Kent V. 1972. The Cultural Evolution of Civilizations. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 3:399–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford, Matt 2010. Hidden Treasure: The Explosion in Commercial Archaeology Has Brought a Flood of Information. The Problem Now Is Figuring Out How to Find and Use This Unpublished Literature. Nature 464 (April 8):826–827.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fowler, Don D. 1982. Cultural Resources Management, Chapter 1. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 5, edited by M. B. Schiffer, pp. 1–50. Academic Press, New York and London.

  • Goodyear, Albert C., Mark Raab, L., Klinger, Timothy C. 1978. The Status of Archaeological Research Design in Cultural Resource Management. American Antiquity 43(2):159–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, William, Doershuk, John F. 1998. Cultural Resource Management and American Archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Research 6(2):121–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grey Literature. 2004. Definition, http://www.proz.com/kudoz/english/general_conversation_greetings_letters/814187-grey_literature.html.

  • Hardman, Catherine 2009. The Online Access to the Index of Archaeological Investigations (OASIS) Project: Facilitating Access to Archaeological Grey Literature in England and Scotland. In Archaeology and the Grey Literature, edited by D. J. Seymour, pp. 76–82 (The Grey Journal 5(2):63–110).

  • Hargis Library, Virginia Institute of Marine Science. 2008. Grey Literature. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Hargis Library, http://web.vims.edu/GreyLit/?svr=www.

  • Harlan, Mark E. 2009. Archaeology’s Grey Literature and Professional Review. In Archaeology and the Grey Literature, edited by Deni J. Seymour, pp. 83–88 (The Grey Journal 5(2):63–110).

  • Hartmann, Jonathon 1995. Information Needs of Anthropologists. Behavioral and Social Sciences Librarian 13(2):13–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hester, Thomas R. 1981. Dealing with Reality. Journal of Field Archaeology 8(4):493–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoopes, John W. 1997. The Future of the Past: Archaeology and Anthropology on the World Wide Web. Archives and Museum Informatics 11(2):87–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huth, Edward 1986. Irresponsible Authorship and Wasteful Publication. Annals of Internal Medicine 104(2):257–259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutson, Scott R. 1998. Strategies for the Reproduction of Prestige in Archaeological Discourse. Paper presented at “the 63rd Annual Meetings of the Society for American Archaeology,” Seattle, WA, March 1998, http://www.assemblage.group.shef.ac.uk/4/4hutson.html#1.

  • Hutson, Scott R. 2002. Gendered Citation Practices in American Antiquity and Other Archaeology Journals. American Antiquity 67(2):331–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutson, Scott R. 2006. Self-Citation in Archaeology: Age, Gender, Prestige, and the Self. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 13(1):1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Information Services. 2008. Reports and Grey Literature. Templeman Library, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent. www.kent.ac.uk/library/subjects/healthinfo/reports.html, http://www.proz.com/kudoz/english/general_conversation_greetings_letters/814187-grey_literature.html.

  • Jarvis, Hugh W. 1999. Science and Technology Resources on the Internet: Resources for Archaeological Lithic Analysts. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship 22 (Spring), http://www.istl.org/99-spring/internet.html, accessed 12 November 2009.

  • Kehoe, Alice B. (1992) The Muted Class: Unshackling Tradition. In Exploring Gender through Archaeologypp. 23–32, edited by C Claassen, Prehistory PressMadison, Wisconsin.,

    Google Scholar 

  • King, T. F. (1987) Prehistory and Beyond: The Place of Archaeology. In The American Mosaic: Preserving a Nation’s Heritagepp. 235–264, edited by RE Stipeand AJ Lee, United States Committee, International Council on Monuments and SitesWashington, DC.,

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotter, Wade R. 2002. Improving Subject Access in Anthropology. Behavioral and Social Sciences Librarian 20(2):1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kristiansen, Kristian 2009. Contract Archaeology in Europe: An Experiment in Diversity. World Archaeology 41(4):641–648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LaPorte Rowland E, Akazawa, S., Gamboa, C., Maclure, M., Marler, E., Sauer, F., and C. Shenton 1995. The death of biomedical journals. BMJ 310:1387–1390, http:/Pomj.com/cgi/content/full/310/6991/1387.

  • LaPorte, Rowland E., Linkov, Faina, Villasenor, Tony, Sauer, Francois, Gamboa, Carlos, Lovalekar, Mita, Shubnikov, Eugene, Sekikawa, Akira, Sa, Eun Ryoung 2002. Papyrus to PowerPoint (P 2 P): Metamorphosis of Scientific Communication. BMJ 325:1478–1481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lightfoot, Kent 1995. Culture Contact Studies: Redefining the Relationships Between Prehistoric and Historical Archaeology. American Antiquity 60(2):199–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Longacre, William A. 1981. CRM Publication: A Review Essay. Journal of Field Archaeology 8(4):487–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGowen, Angela 2009. Managing the Vulnerabilities of Archaeological Grey Literature: A Case Study form Tasmania. In Archaeology and the Grey Literature, edited by Deni J. Seymour, pp. 72–75 (The Grey Journal 5(2):63–110).

  • Nardi, Bonnie, Adams, Michael, Chu, Melody, Khan, Shiraz, Lai, John, and Elsy Lao 2004. AnthroSource: Designing a Portal for Anthropologists. First Monday 9(10), http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1181/1101. accessed October 2009.

  • NPS (National Park Service). 2009. The National Archaeological Database, http://www.cr.nps.gov/aad/tools/nadb.htm, accessed 12 November 2009.

  • O’Brien, M. J., Lyman, R. L., Schiffer, M. B. (2005) Archaeology as a Process: Processualism and its Progeny, The University of Utah PressSalt Lake City.,

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Dell, Carmen, Dallman, David, Vesely, Martin, Vigen, Jens 2004. 50 Years of Experience in Making Grey Literature Available: Matching the Expectations of the Particle Physics Community. Publishing Research Quarterly 20(1):84–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parezo, N., and S. Bender 1994. From glacial to chilly: a comparison between archaeology and socio-cultural anthropology. In Equity Issues for Women in Archaeology, edited by M.C. Nelson, S.N. Nelson, and A. Wylie, pp. 73–82. Archaeological Paper of the American Anthropological Association 5.

  • Pavlov, Leonid 2006. The Problems of Grey in the Context of Postmodern Science and Culture. Publishing Research Quarterly 22(1):18–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, D. P., Ceci, S. J. 1982. Peer-Review Practices of Psychology Journals: The Fate of Published Articles. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5(2):187–195. (submitted again).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raab, L. Mark, Klinger, Timothy C., Schiffer, Michael. B., Goodyear, Albert C. 1980. Clients, Contracts, and Profits: Conflicts in Public Archaeology. American Anthropologist 82(3):539–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reid, J. Jefferson 1990. Editor’s Corner: Peer Review at American Antiquity. American Antiquity 55(4):665–666.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renfrew, A. Colin 1983. Divided We Stand: Aspects of Archaeology and Information. American Antiquity 48(1):3–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richards, Julian D. 1998. Recent Trends in Computer Applications in Archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Research 6(4):331–382.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richards, Julian D. 2002. Digital Preservation and Access. European Journal of Archaeology 5(3):343–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richards, Julian D. 2007. Current challenges for digital preservation and delivery. PowerPoint presentation, http://archaeoinformatics.org/lecture_series/ppt/Cyberinfra_Nov_2007.pdf.

  • Schiffer, Michael B., House, John H. 1977. Cultural Resource Management and Archaeological Research: The Cache Project. Current Anthropology 18(1):43–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scholarly. 2009. In Webster’s New World College Dictionary, retrieved 23 April 2009, www.yourdictionary.com/scholarly.

  • Seely, Amber 2005. Digging Up Archaeological Information. Behavioral and Social Sciences Librarian 24(1):1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seymour, Deni J. 2009a. Introduction: International Perspectives on Archaeological Grey Literature. In Archaeology and Grey Literature, guest editor Deni J. Seymour (The Grey Journal 5(2):64–66).

  • Seymour, Deni J. 2009b. Special Ethical and Scholarship Considerations for the Archaeological Grey Literature. In Archaeology and Grey Literature, guest editor Deni J. Seymour (The Grey Journal 5(2):89–96).

  • Shott, M. J. 1992 Commerce or service: Models of practice in archaeology. Quandaries and Quests: Visions of Archaeology’s Future, edited by Wandsnider, L. pp. 9–24. Center for Archaeological Investigations Occasional Paper No. 20, Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

  • Smith, Richard 1999. Opening up BMJ Peer Review. BMJ 318:4–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • SAA (Society for American Archaeology). 2009. Society for American Archaeology On-Line Publication Series, https://ecommerce.saa.org/saa/source/orders/index.cfm?section=Orders&task=1&CATEGORY=E%2DELECT&DESCRIPTION=Electronic%20Publications&CFTOKEN=59879315&continue=1&SEARCH_TYPE=find.

  • Stock, Christiane, and Bernard Sampité 2009. DAPHNE, Full Text Repositories and Other Resources: What Place for Grey Literature on Archaeology in France today? In Archaeology and the Grey Literature, edited by Deni J. Seymour, pp. 97–104 (The Grey Journal 5(2):63–110).

  • Stock, C., and J. Schöpfel 2004. Grey Literature in an Open Context: From Certainty to New Challenges. Paper presented at “the 2004 GL (Grey Literature) Conference”, http://www.greynet.org/images/GL5_Stock.ppt and http://archivesic.ccsd.cnrs.fr/docs/00/06/23/56/PDF/sic_00000893.pdf.

  • Straus, Lawrence Guy 2006. Academic Responsibility, Professionalism, and Scholarly Publication in the Age of High Corporate Profits. Journal of Anthropological Research 62(4):593–595.

    Google Scholar 

  • tDAR, (The Digital Archaeological Record). 2009. The Digital Archaeological Record. http://dev.tdar.org/confluence/display/TDAR/Home.

  • Tyler, David, Xu, Yang, Nimsakont, Emily Dust 2009. Unearthing Archaeology: A Study of the Recent Coverage of Selected English-Language Archaeology Journals by Multi-Subject Indexes and by Anthropological Literature. Behavioral and Social Sciences Librarian 28(3):100–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • University Library. 2008. Why is Gray Literature Important? California State University, Long Beach, Long Beach, California, http://www.csulb.edu/library/subj/gray_literature/.

  • U.S. Office of Personnel Management 1983. Position Classification Standard for Archeological Series, GS-0193, www.opm.gov/fedclass/gs0193.pdf.

  • Van Rooyen, Susan, Godlee, Fiona, Evans, Stephen, Black, Nick, Smith, Richard 1999. Effect of Open Peer Review on Quality of Reviews and on Reviewers’ Recommendations: A Randomised Trial. BMJ 318:23–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weintraub, Irwin 2006. The Role of Grey Literature in the Sciences. http://library.brooklyn.cuny.edu/access/greyliter.htm.

  • Wylie, A. 1983. Comments on The Socio-Politics of Archaeology: The Demystification of the Profession. In The Socio-Politics of Archaeology, edited by J. M. Gero, D. M. Lacy, and M. L. Blakey, pp. 119–130. Department of Anthropology, University of Massachusetts Research Report 23, Department of Anthropology, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Albuquerque, USA

    Deni J. Seymour

Authors
  1. Deni J. Seymour
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Deni J. Seymour.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Seymour, D.J. Sanctioned Inequity and Accessibility Issues in the Grey Literature in the United States. Arch 6, 233–269 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11759-010-9144-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11759-010-9144-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation