AIC

I have not had time to digest thoroughly Mr. Caldararo's comments on
the AIC meeting, but want to thank him for raising these complex
issues on the List, and to urge others to comment in substantive
ways. We all prefer to focus on issues that relate directly to our
work, but it is clear that matters like certification will
eventually effect us all, and AIC needs to be guided by the
preferences of its members.

As former chair of the AIC Publications Committee, I also want to
correct his notion that it has tried to force the Specialty Groups
to apply peer review to their publications.  What we have been
trying to do is to make the editorial and review processes of every
AIC publication clear to readers.  There is a place for non-juried
publications in getting relatively unfiltered information out
quickly to readers who are qualified to assess it themselves and to
use it or reject it based on their professional expertise.

In reference to the contents of JAIC, we must all acknowledge that
it reflects not the preferences of the editors but the articles that
are submitted.  The only way for us to be able to read more articles
on treatments is for more of us to write them.

The Publications Committee's official mandate has been to increase
both the number and quality of AIC publications. Its work has been
guided by the certainty that conservators possess far more
information, wisdom, and useful experiences than has ever been
committed to paper, and that the whole field benefits when a larger
number of voices are heard.  For all of you who read the list (and
the number is very large), please consider writing, for JAIC or any
other conservation journal.  JAIC does not require that authors be
AIC members, so that is no excuse!

B. Appelbaum


                                  ***
                  Conservation DistList Instance 14:3
                  Distributed: Thursday, July 6, 2000
                        Message Id: cdl-14-3-002
                                  ***