Value from Development-Led Archaeology in the UK: Advancing the Narrative to Reflect Societal Changes

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

As I continued to read through this paper I came to appreciate its contributions more and more. In particular, by the end of Section 4 "Reality Check," I was convinced by its strength and relationship to the special issue theme. However, structurally I think you can foreground where you're going a bit more concretely in the abstract and introduction, which I found difficult to grasp and opaque (e.g., social value v. public benefit considerations) as someone not intimately familiar with development-led archaeology. I think if you were clearer about your argument and its implications as you introduce the various considerations in the abstract and Sections 1 and 2, I believe more readers will be attracted to the paper and its contents.

Author Response

Review: 

As I continued to read through this paper I came to appreciate its contributions more and more. In particular, by the end of Section 4 "Reality Check," I was convinced by its strength and relationship to the special issue theme. However, structurally I think you can foreground where you're going a bit more concretely in the abstract and introduction, which I found difficult to grasp and opaque (e.g., social value v. public benefit considerations) as someone not intimately familiar with development-led archaeology. I think if you were clearer about your argument and its implications as you introduce the various considerations in the abstract and Sections 1 and 2, I believe more readers will be attracted to the paper and its contents.

 

My response:

Many thanks for the helpful review. I have clarified the Introduction and Abstract, and I have also defined public benefit and social value, as we see them have also provided further explanation over the UK system, for an international audience. .

Reviewer 2 Report

I believe the methods  and introduction should be more precisely presented. 

Conclusions part needs more clarification. Perhaps, as the article is a part of the project, it would be advisable to provide info how the project will be further developed. 

 

Additional comments:

As the aims are to show the evaluation process it should be also focused on possible conflicts between different stakeholders  with the notion of cultural rights. I think more attention should be given to the international legal framework and while referring to  public benefit the next generations should be mentioned as well (The UNESCO Declaration on the Responsibility of the Present Generations Towards Future Generations, adopted 12 November 1997) The journal is OA, so the goal is to reach  broader  audience. I believe some work on how the main results and conclusions are presented should be done to attract the potential readers. Last but not least it should be mentioned how the challenges and projected future  of archeology fits the sustainable use of cultural heritage.

Author Response

Review: 

I believe the methods and introduction should be more precisely presented.

Conclusions part needs more clarification. Perhaps, as the article is a part of the project, it would be advisable to provide info how the project will be further developed.

As the aims are to show the evaluation process it should be also focused on possible conflicts between different stakeholders with the notion of cultural rights. I think more attention should be given to the international legal framework and while referring to public benefit the next generations should be mentioned as well (The UNESCO Declaration on the Responsibility of the Present Generations Towards Future Generations, adopted 12 November 1997) The journal is OA, so the goal is to reach broader audience. I believe some work on how the main results and conclusions are presented should be done to attract the potential readers. Last but not least it should be mentioned how the challenges and projected future of archaeology fits the sustainable use of cultural heritage.

My response:

Thank you for this very helpful review.

I have clarified the Introduction section. We didn't have a Methods section, so  haven't tackled that comment by this reviewer.

I have also expanded upon the Conclusion to clarify the aims of the paper. The paper doesn't form a specific part of a project, this was written upon the invitation of the Editors and was intended to be broadly of interest.

I have also added a ref to a very recent and useful UNESCO report on Sustainable Cities, which highlights the possible conflicts arising from different stakeholders and the UNSDGs.  This responds to the reviewer's comment around sustainable futures and heritage.  

Reviewer 3 Report

Perhaps the Introduction should be revise to eliminate too lengthy sentences and to make it easier for an international readership. 

Additional comments:

The article is about how an archaeology-led approach to development could be more beneficial than development-led heritage conservation. The article is fine from my perspective, except that the authors should keep in mind that an international readership may not have a good understanding of policies and jargon related to town development, planning, archaeology, and heritage conservation. Therefore, the authors should take enough care to clear and step-by-step explanation of their thesis and the conservation context in the UK. For example, it is better to clarify what the authors mean by 'development-led archaeology'. In other countries, it may be development-led heritage conservation. The term 'archaeology' is used in a specific context in other countries. This is why I said that a good, clear, non-jargonistic introduction is necessary to provide a succinct understanding of their paper to an international readership.

Best regards,

Author Response

Review:

Perhaps the Introduction should be revise to eliminate too lengthy sentences and to make it easier for an international readership.

The article is about how an archaeology-led approach to development could be more beneficial than development-led heritage conservation. The article is fine from my perspective, except that the authors should keep in mind that an international readership may not have a good understanding of policies and jargon related to town development, planning, archaeology, and heritage conservation. Therefore, the authors should take enough care to clear and step-by-step explanation of their thesis and the conservation context in the UK. For example, it is better to clarify what the authors mean by 'development-led archaeology'. In other countries, it may be development-led heritage conservation. The term 'archaeology' is used in a specific context in other countries. This is why I said that a good, clear, non-jargonistic introduction is necessary to provide a succinct understanding of their paper to an international readership.

 

My response:

Thank you for this very helpful review. I have revised the Abstract, Intro and other sections to better reflect the international relevance and I have also explained the UK method of working in development-led archaeology. I have also added some refs to a recent UNESCO document that stresses the need to consider the different values held by professionals and communities.