
doi: 10.5334/pp.9
Moshenska’s forum article is a welcome tough new approach to public archaeology, which has an unfortunate tendency to be seen as inherently ‘fluffy’ by both practitioners and the ‘public’ alike. Hard thinking and any writing about the economics of archaeology are rare enough (although see Aitchison 2009 as an important recent example); specifically on public archaeology these outputs are virtually unprecedented. Moshenska’s model is a good starting point for thinking about the ‘economics’ of archaeology in general, as both he and as the first forum discussant have both highlighted (see Burtenshaw 2009).
| citations This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 3 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
