publizieren - iada-home.org · conservation treatments. scientific papers are peer reviewed. the...

7PapierRestaurierung Vol. 9 (2008), No. 2

Publishing is not yet generally re-quired as part of conservators’ profes-sional development and so employersdo not usually support it. It is there-fore logical that the amount of pub-lications by conservators remainsquite low. Publication is currentlymainly limited to the work of dedi-cated individual conservators. Inaddition, the conservation trainingprograms do not usually provide in-formation on how to publish a paperand hence master students intendingto publish their results have difficul-ties in getting papers accepted.

This situation can be describedas a major drawback for the develop-ment of the conservation profession.The longer that only a few conserva-tors are able to prove the relevance oftheir work by publishing papers thatmeet scientific standards, the longerthe profession will keep its low profilestatus in comparison to other profes-sions such as curators or conservationscientists. The question arises of howthe quality of contributions can beimproved and how conservators canbe stimulated to share their know-ledge by increasing the number ofpapers published. This contributionattempts to fill one gap by providingthe basic knowledge necessary forwriting a scientific paper for the con-servation profession. It aims to sup-port conservators that rarely publishby presenting a procedure that directsthe author step by step in writing apaper containing all the necessaryinformation in the correct order.

General information regardingthe structure of scientific papers isprovided by other web sites, usually

university web sites (e.g. try Googlefor ‘How to write a scientific paper’).In this article special attention is giv-en to the particular requirements forpublishing in the journal ‘Papier-Restaurierung’. This journal reportsregularly on new research outcomesand innovative developments in theconservation of cultural heritage ob-jects of paper and related materials.The target groups of the journal arepaper conservators, art historians,archivists, librarians and conser-vation scientists.

Will it be a Scientific Paper or an Article?

‘The purpose of writing scientificpapers is to communicate an idea(or set of ideas) to people who havethe ability to either carry the ideaeven further or make other good useof it. It is believed that the communi-cation of good ideas is the mediumthrough which science progresses.’(Goldreich 2004: 1)

In the world of natural scienceideas are usually expressed as a solu-tion to a research question regardinga specific problem.

Publishing a paper is reason-able if the author addresses a pro-blem that is relevant for the targetgroup of a journal and if scientificmethodology was applied to solvethe research question. To ensure arelevant contribution, the authorshould first consider whether theidea is novel, innovative and whetherit advances the current state of know-ledge.

It is quite easy to decide whetherthe information can be published as

a scientific paper: besides presentinga new idea, a scientific paper mustcontain research. If not, althoughthe information to be shared maywell be relevant, a scientific paper isnot the right form. Other approachesare more appropriate like publishingan article or placing an article on aweb site. Before submitting a paperthe author must know which kind ofcontribution it will be: a scientificpaper or another form of publication.Some journals only publish scientificpapers. The ‘PapierRestaurierung’ en-courages two types of contributions:

The subjects of scientific paperscover the creation, preservation andconservation of cultural heritage onpaper and related materials. They canvary from new information about thematerial-technical aspects of thecreation of objects (art technology),new insights into how objects changethrough the centuries (decay proces-ses and decay prognosis), new preser-vation strategies (risk management)as well as evaluation, improvementor development of new techniques forconservation treatments. Scientificpapers are peer reviewed.

The subjects of articles or notesalso cover the creation, preservationand conservation of cultural heri-tage on paper and related materialsbut do not include research. Suchworks come under the headings of‘A Conservation Project’, ‘Conserva-tion Techniques’, ‘New materials’,‘Literature review’, etc. These publi-cations are not peer-reviewed andhave a more current or news value.

P U B L I Z I E R E N

Challenge or Bother?Writing a Conservation Science Paper*

Writing is a creative occupation, regardless of whether it is creating a novel, writing a let-ter or a scientific paper. Everyone who has ever published in a journal will remember howdemanding it was to write their first paper (Fig 1). Publishing confronts the author with thequestions, how much of the gained information should be included and how should theinformation be organized? How can it be presented so that the target group understandsthe relevance and meaning of the message? Are the conclusions sound and the results rele-vant for other colleagues?

1 Writing is a creative task for allgenerations.

8


PapierRestaurierung Vol. 9 (2008), No. 2

Points to consider:(1) Papers written in the style of instruc-

tion material and that address a ge-neral subject, for instance: ‘Adhesivesapplied in the field of paper conser-vation’, ‘Consolidation techniquesfor powdery paint’, often discuss therelevant literature but lack any origi-nal research. Such contributions arerelevant for the conservation fielddue to the continuing lack of instruc-tion material. However, they are notconsidered to be research papers be-cause instead of presenting a newidea the previously published ideasof others are merely summarized. Inthe field of the conservation of cul-tural heritage ‘Reviews in Conser-vation’, published annually by theInternational Institute for Conserva-tion of Historic and Artistic Works(IIC), is the only journal specializedin publishing such articles. The edi-tors of ‘PapierRestaurierung’ willeither refer such submissions to IICor publish it as an article, not as aresearch paper.

(2) Contributions that contain the textof a presentation or lecture usuallydo not meet the criteria of researchpapers. These texts often need revi-sion before publishing and also oftenlack a theoretical background withrelevant references.

(3) Articles that describe a specific con-servation project can be relevant forthe target group; for instance, conser-vators facing a comparable question(same artist, same technique or simi-lar problems). However, if such con-tributions do not include research,they will not meet the criteria pre-scribed for scientific papers. The‘PapierRestaurierung’ publishessuch submissions under the headingof ‘A conservation project’. Thisapproach enables the spreading ofinformation amongst the conser-vation community without puttingauthors in the difficult position ofhaving to force information into aresearch form when it is not.

(4) Publishing a paper more than onceis risky. For the author it might be away to spread information to differ-ent target groups, however readers

are often confused when an paperis published elsewhere because it isunclear where the content of publi-cation 1 differs from the content ofpublication 2. Choosing a secondlanguage (German/English) mightbe a logical reason to reach a largerpublic. However, the reader shouldbe informed if an paper has beenpreviously published elsewhere. Con-sequently the ‘PapierRestaurierung’asks authors to provide this infor-mation. The editorial board decidesif it is worthwhile for the readers topublish an paper a second time.

Where to Publish a Paper?

Only a few journals exist in the fieldof conservation of cultural heritage,some of national and some of inter-national relevance (Fig 2). Firstly anauthor should consider whether theinformation is for the national pu-blic or whether it has internationalrelevance. The next thing to consideris the target group. Each journal isaimed at a certain target group. Ifthis target group coincides with thatwhich the author aims to informthen this journal is a good choice.A journal that offers a peer reviewhas a higher quality than a journalthat does not. However, in the fieldof conservation, hardly any journalsare in fact peer reviewed. It is inter-esting to know that in the ‘real’ scien-tific world, paper citation rates andthe impact factor (IF) of a journaldetermine the scientific value of ajournal.

Conservation related papers oftenuse visual information to enhance ex-planation. The quality of published

figures is therefore important. Doesthe journal publish photos in colour?Is the size of the figures large enough?The author should also ask if andhow published papers are accessibleand searchable by using the internet.For instance, papers published in the‘PapierRestaurierung’ can be foundon ‘Conservation online’ (CooL).Directly after publication, titles andsummaries of each paper are acces-sible online through the IADA Web-site found at http://palimpsest.stanford.

edu/iada. After a period of 5 years thefull papers (PDF) are put online andare accessible without charge.

How do the Editors Evaluatethe Quality of a Paper?

Journals are either peer reviewed ornot. Offering a peer review is always asign of quality. Since they are requir-ed to evaluate and thereby improve apaper’s quality, peer reviews aim tosupport the author and the publisheras well as the reader. When the editorreceives a manuscript, it is sent totwo or three specialized experts for acritical peer review. The evaluationcriteria differ from journal to jour-nal. For the ‘PapierRestaurierung’,the following key criteria are applied:

> Novelty: is this study innovative anddoes it advance the current state ofknowledge? Will the results lead toan improvement in the preservationof cultural heritage? Will the resultslead to an improvement in the in-tellectual or material access to cul-tural heritage?

> Applicability: will the implementa-tion of the results significantly im-prove understanding of and enhancethe conservation of cultural heritage?This factor determines the relevancefor the target group.

> Scientific quality: is the appliedmethodology or experimental workscientifically and technically sound?

> Presentation: is the informationwell organized?

The referees judge if a paper ma-kes a new and important contribu-tion to the understanding of any areaof paper conservation or related sub-jects. Based on the evaluation crite-

2 Conservation journals are of (inter)national importance.

slogan also applies to publishing:‘Practice makes perfect’.

(2) Inexperienced authors tend to de-scribe an experiment in chronolo-gical order. It is essential to bear inmind that the structure of a scientificpaper does not usually reflect thechronological sequence of the re-search but instead follows a logicalorder. Following the prescribed orderwill help the author to maintain alogical organization of the infor-mation.

(3) Never organize a text by beginningwith describing the materials, me-thods, results of the first experiment,then continuing with the second ex-periment etc. This is very confusingand time consuming for the readeras they are forced to search for therequired information.

Who are the Authors?

The authors of a paper are all thosecolleagues that made essential con-tributions to the study, either by writ-ing it, carrying out analyses or bysupporting the author with generaladvice during the study. As publish-ing is part of the professional eval-uation within any scientific environ-ment it is crucial to include all con-



ria, they recommend the acceptance,revision or rejection of a paper. It isthe final responsibility of the editorto determine the suitability of amanuscript for publication.

Several people read each contri-bution during the review process.For the ‘PapierRestaurierung’ at leastfive people (the publisher, the editor,two or three reviewers and, if requir-ed, a translator) will examine a pa-per. Both the editor and the publisherwill read an paper at least three timesand the author at least twice duringthe editing process.

Points to consider:(1) Even with experienced writers every

paper or article requires some modi-fications to the content, style, or lan-guage.

(2) The reviewer, the editors and the au-thors spend their valuable time pro-viding the target group with relevantinformation. The comments of revie-wers are never personal but aimed atimproving the quality of the submit-ted paper. Taking comments perso-nally is a sign of inexperience andlack of professionalism.

(3) E-mails are a tricky medium for com-municating about problems especi-ally if a foreign language is involved.While e-mails provide structured in-formation they can sometimes seemtoo abrupt: a personal communica-tion usually helps to prevent misunder-standings. A telephone call or perso-nal conversation are more effectivein reaching the final goal–creatinga win-win situation for the authorand the reader.

How to Layout a Submission?

Receiving all papers in a similar lay-out makes the work of the publisherand editors much easier. Thereforeeach journal has particular require-ments for the outline of submissions.They are described in detail in the‘Guidelines for authors’ which areusually available on a journal’s web-site. For ‘PapierRestaurierung’ theguidelines can be found at http://

palimpsest.edu/iada/PR_guidelines_en.

pdf. It is necessary to meticulously

read and follow these guidelines sin-ce a paper will most probably be re-turned to the author or may even berejected when the guidelines are notfollowed. Consulting former journalissues can give an idea of how to ap-ply the guidelines correctly.

Points to consider: (1) There is just one rule: follow the guide-

lines strictly even if you personallydislike the layout or if it differs fromthat with which you are familiar. Youcan write the paper in your own layout but always edit it as prescribedbefore submitting.

(2) Special attention must be given tothe references: all journals havedifferent requirements for citingand listing references.

How to Organise the Information?

The content of a paper must be pre-sented in a structured and logicalway. Papers always follow a prescrib-ed order in the natural sciences field.This order has proven to be so usefulthat it is generally applied regardlessof whether the paper presents medi-cal, chemical, or biological research.An increasing number of humanitiespapers also apply a similar organiza-tion. Papers organized this way al-ways start with an introduction to thesubject, then discuss the theoreticalbackground, describe applied mate-rials and equipment, present the re-sults, discuss them and finally endwith a conclusion (Fig 3). This orderallows the readers to easily find therequired information. Submissionsfor the ‘PapierRestaurierung’ alsoshould follow this order. The nextsections will discuss all necessaryparts of an paper in detail, startingwith the title and ending with theacknowledgements.

Points to consider:(1) Often it is felt to be quite difficult to

organize a paper according to thisprescription. Understanding, accep-ting and applying the prescribed or-der will lead to improvement. Justas for life in general, the following 3 The structure of a paper.

ExperimentalMaterials & Methods

ResultsPresentation: Figures, Charts

DiscussionResults interpretation

ConclusionsWhat does the target group gain?

TheoryKnowledge & Aim

IntroductionProblem & Question

10



tributing colleagues. The first authoris the person who did the relevantwork or most of it. The names of theother contributors are sorted either inalphabetical order or according to thesignificance of their contribution. Forthe ‘PapierRestaurierung’, the fullname(s) of author(s) should be stat-ed correctly using one of these two or-ders. The author for correspondenceshould be indicated with an asterisk(*) (for example: Lucia Schneider,Annabell Rusting* and George Blue).

Points to consider:(1) Papers submitted to conservation

journals are often written by a singleauthor. In a scientific environmentthis is an unusual exception as se-veral people usually contribute toa study. Indeed, it is not uncommonto have more than five authors.

(2) Colleagues that significantly contri-buted to a study should be asked be-forehand if they want to be includedas author. When publishing a diplo-ma thesis, all supervisors should alsobe asked.

(3) Everybody who is named as authorshould receive the paper well in ad-vance before submission. This willallow time for agreement on the con-tent of the paper and the opportunityto add more information when ne-cessary.

(4) Colleagues that are not included asauthor but did contribute to a cer-tain extent should always be inclu-ded in the acknowledgement section.

(5) Failure to include or acknowledgecontributors is highly unprofessionaland implies that the author is moremotivated by self-advancement thancontributing to the body of knowledge.

How to Formulate a CatchyTitle?

A proper title is the key to ensuringthat an paper will reach its intendedaudience. The title will be read bymany more people than the entirepaper (e.g., when it is cited in another paper and included in referen-ces). It should consist of the fewestpossible words that accurately des-cribe the content of a paper. A title

should also stand out. To help thereader, the ‘PapierRestaurierung’ re-quests a two-part title where the ge-neral subject should first be brieflystated, followed by a brief descriptionof the topic (e.g. ‘Pastel painting:Fixatives applied in the 18th cen-tury’). To raise interest, titels oftenrefer to common proverbs, ideoms,phrases, poems etc. like ‘Dust in thewind: 18th century fixatives on pastelpaintings’.

Points to consider: (1) It is very difficult to condense the con-

tent of an entire paper into a singleline: the title. Eliminating all super-fluous words such as ‘A study of ...’,‘Investigations of ...’, ‘Observationson ...’, already helps to shorten a titleto the ideal length of less than 15words. Defining a limited number ofdescriptive keywords beforehand helps.

(2) When the author uses only the com-mon subtitles of Introduction, Theo-ry, Results etc., while being correct,it is boring to read. Skilled writersinstead use more appealing subtitlesthat refer to their content while stilladhering to the structure.

How to Write a High-qualitySummary?

Reading a summary enables the rea-der to decide whether it is worthwhilereading the entire paper or not. Con-sequently a summary should sum upthe key information of the paper invery few words (150-250). A summaryshould contain a brief backgroundto the topic including the researchquestion, a description of the appliedmaterials and methods, the major re-sults of the study and finally the con-clusions are given taking care to an-swering the initial research question.

Points to consider: (1) A good summary will contain all the

relevant results and conclusions. Acommon mistake is to state nonspe-cifically what the reader will find inthe paper, e.g. ‘results are discussed’:this is the function of an abstract.

(2) References or footnotes should notbe included in a summary.

The Introduction The introduction should introducethe reader to the general subject ofthe research. This is usually a pro-blem that requires an investigation.The problem must be understandableeven if the reader has not done anywork in the field. The aim of an in-troduction is to establish the signifi-cance of the current work. If the pro-blem is not stated in a logical, under-standable way, the reader may notdevelop an interest in the solution.Including a photo that illustrates theproblem aids understanding and sosupports the relevance of the study(Fig 4). The introduction ends with adescription of the research questionto be addressed. Formulating a con-cise, clear and understandable re-search question needs some practicebut is indispensable. The applicationof the final results should always bethe focus when formulating the re-search question. A properly formulat-ed research question will leave thetarget group eagerly looking forwardto learning the solution to the pro-blem in order to apply the newly gain-ed knowledge in their own practice.

Points to consider: (1) If there is no problem, no research

needs to be done. Therefore a clearexplanation of the problem is essen-tial. Often authors imply that thereader is already familiar with theproblem and so fail to describe itadequately. In this case a readermight not fully understand the im-portance and urgency of a problemand the necessity of the research. Butif there is no clear problem, why

4 Describing a problem with con-vincing photos raises the interest.



would one spent money and time incarrying out the research?

(2) When formulating research questionsfor conservation research, authorsoften overlook the fact that the resultsshould be applicable for the targetgroup. Such papers are unconvinc-ing and will score low in a review.

For example:Charcoals, pastels, and other artifactswith powdery media are susceptibleto surface damage. This is a reco-gnizable problem for conservatorsand collection keepers. Such a gene-ral problem usually encompassesmany topics. Therefore it is necessaryto reduce the scope to a single rese-arch question which addresses onlyone topic. In this case, a researchquestion could focus on one of thefollowing topics: is it possible to opti-mize present transport strategies forsuch vulnerable objects? Which fixa-ting agents for powdery paint havebeen applied on pastels in the past?How does the size of pigment par-ticles influence the powdery charac-ter of media? These questions differin one major point: the final applica-tion of the results. The first questionwill lead to an optimized transportstrategy for this type of object. An-swering the second question will helpconservators and collection mana-gers to better understand the processof pastel making and to optimizepreservation or conservation strate-gies. The third question does not leadto an applicable result either for con-servators or for collection managers.A paper addressing this last questionwould score low and might fail to beaccepted.

The Theoretical Background

The theory presents the backgroundknowledge necessary for the reader tounderstand why the research ques-tion can not be answered with thealready existing knowledge. To thisend the published literature is criti-cally reviewed. The author shouldpoint out which information is avail-able and commonly accepted andwhich aspects are doubtful or un-

known and therefore require furtherresearch. The theoretical backgroundends with the definition of the researchaim. A properly defined research aimis only successful and relevant if thetarget group will be able to apply theresults of the study. The aim of thestudy should be referred to once morein the conclusion. Some research pa-pers combine introduction and theo-ry. The ‘PapierRestaurierung’, prefersto keep them separate.

Points to consider: (1) Some authors attempt to exhaustive-

ly express all they know and all thathas been published on a subject. Suchauthors forget that there is a reader.It might be appealing for the author(s)to demonstrate their superiority, how-ever a reader may be rather bored.

(2) Limiting the theoretical part to a cri-tical review of the current state ofknowledge on the specified problemwill keep the reader interested in theproblem. Everything unrelated to theresearch question is redundant.

(3) A typical mistake is to list literaturein the bibliography that is not refer-red to in the text. Also, introducingauthors and their areas of study ingeneral terms without indicatingtheir major findings is pointless.

(4) Plagiarism (copying the work ofothers without proper acknowledge-ment) is unprofessional. Usually itwill be discovered as the reviewers arefamiliar with the published literatureand always check for plagiarism.

(5) If the research aim is not linked tothe general problem and the researchquestion then confusion may ariseand cause misinterpretation of re-sults and reluctance to accept theconclusions.

(6) Ending the theory section withoutspecifying the aim of the study leavesthe reader without a direction: theyshould know where the study isgoing.

For example:For a paper that addresses the pro-blem of exhibiting mould infectedpastels, listing all existing literatureon mould on paper can be quite bor-

ing to read and even misleading. In-stead, a critical review of publica-tions on pastel technology in rela-tion to the potential development ofmould may lead to the conclusionthat the present knowledge is suffi-cient to understand the fungal decayof pastels on paper. However, pastelson parchment are not yet addressedin the literature nor are appropriateexhibition policies. The suggestionto limit the present study on this sub-ject would be a logical conclusion forthe reader to accept. However, the re-search will be not relevant if the re-sults were not applicable for a con-servator. So the study could, for in-stance, aim at developing an exhibi-tion policy that mitigates mould for-mation on pastels on parchment.Such a concrete research aim wouldform a worthy end to the theoreticalbackground.

The Experiment (Materials and Methods)

The purpose of the experiment sec-tion is to describe the methods andmaterials used. In principle, this de-scription should be detailed enoughto allow other researchers to repli-cate the work. The scientific metho-dology applied must be explainedeven if no experiment was carriedout. The procedures vary from onefield to the other. In conservation re-search, quantitative as well as quali-tative research methods are applied.

Points to consider:(1) A scientific paper is not the right place

to report on a subject if you have notcarried out any research or experi-ments. Instead, a more suitable ap-proach of disseminating relevant in-formation is to publish an articleunder the title of ‘A conservationproject’ or ‘New conservation tech-niques’.

(2) A common mistake is to describe theexperiment chronologically, combin-ing materials and methods with theresults and even adding conclusions.

(3) The names of the research techniquesused should always be presented infull length before adding the abbre-

are used to visualize results and in-clude photos, drawings, graphs, dia-grams, charts, etc. (Fig 5). Graphsusually demonstrate trends or iden-tify patterns of a relationship. Graphsshould include the standard devia-tion, as only when the margin of er-ror is provided can the reader judgethe consistency of the findings (Fig 6).Charts show structures (Fig 3). Eachfigure or table requires a label (e.g.

Fig 1 or Tab 1) and a descriptive ex-planation so that the reader knowswhat to look for (Fig 7). It is very va-luable also to include negative re-sults not only for a complete reportbut also so that other colleagues canavoid repeating the work.

Points to consider: (1) In this section, only results are in-

cluded. The author should neitherattempt to explain anything nor dis-cuss or interpret the results.

(2) Data are mentioned just once; repeti-tion should be strictly avoided.

(3) Text should complement any figuresor tables and not repeat the same in-formation. Not all results require afigure; simple results are best statedin a single sentence.

(4) All figures and tables must be socomplete that they can stand aloneseparate from the text. They shouldbe published with a caption that ex-plains the information that is beingpresented.

(5) Graphs should contain a standarddeviation.

(6) Tables should not be used to show atrend or a pattern of relationship be-tween sets of values; these are betterpresented in a Figure.

12



viation: e.g., Scanning ElectronMicroscopy (SEM).

(4) Equipment should be described ac-curately within the text includingthe supplier: e.g., Climate chamber(VC0020: Vötsch). The same appliesto materials: e.g., Ethanol (96 %:Sigma-Aldrich Corporation).

(5) Colloquial names or jargon shouldbe strictly avoided. Nobody will re-member what ‘Magic rub’ was intwenty years time. Some jargon maybe specific to certain countries: e.g.,the term ‘Amylum Tritici’ is widelyused for a wheat starch adhesive inthe Netherlands while in other coun-tries other names may prevail. Toprevent misunderstanding, materialsneed to be specified: e.g., Hollytex®

(white, non-woven polyester fibres:Conservation Resources International).

(6) Modifications to equipment or equip-ment constructed specifically for thestudy should be described in detail.

The Results

The results of a study are presentedunder this heading without attemp-ting to interpret their meaning. Thetrick to writing a good results sectionis knowing what information to in-clude and what to leave out. The re-sults section must be clear and logi-cally organized. To achieve this, in-stead of including all the raw data,only relevant data are presented astext and illustrated with tables andfigures. The text is used to state theresults in such a way as to indicateto the reader the most relevant out-comes. Tables present lists of num-bers or text in columns. Figures areeverything that is not a table. They

The Discussion The discussion explains what the re-sults mean and how they comparewith any findings of other colleagues.It is crucial that the discussion restsfirmly on the evidence presented inthe result section. Note that the re-sults can be referred too but shouldnot be repeated. It is not enough tostate that the results are consistentwith the expectations. Instead itshould be suggested why resultscame out as they did by explainingthe theory and mechanisms behindthem. Relevant literature can be citedin the discussion if it supports thereasoning. The discussion serves tosupport the final conclusions. Someauthors combine the results and dis-cussion, others discussion and con-clusion.

Points to consider: (1) For the inexperienced writer to learn

how to separate the task of recordingdata from interpretation, it is usefulto treat the results and the discussionseparately.

(2) Results should not be repeated here,only discussed.

For example:Say that the result of an EDX analysisproved that a drawing ink containedthe elements Fe and Ca as well as tra-ces of K and S. Then the discussionsection is the right place to arguethat inks containing Fe and S arelikely to be iron gall inks due to ironsulfate being a major ingredient. Thisstatement should be supported with areference. However other inks as, forinstance, Bistre, could also contain

5 Figures might be attractive but areuseless if they have no relation tothe subject of the paper.

7 One could think that this is a Dutchstreet should the figure caption beinadequate; the street is actuallysituated in Potsdam, Germany.

6 Figures should include the standarddeviation.

A B C

3,000

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0

Sulp

hur

cont

ent

Non-aqueous treatments

before treatment after treatment



similar elements. This should also besupported by referring to other studies.

Conclusions

Each paper must end with a conclu-sion. Here the research question asset out in the beginning should beanswered, the aim of the study ad-dressed and the significance of theresults discussed. The significance ofthe results is primarily dependant ontheir ultimate applicability. The con-clusion should state in which contextthe results are applicable in order toavoid the reader thinking ‘So what?’The conclusion should be as conciseas possible.

Points to consider:(1) A conclusion is not a summary. Ne-

ver repeat what the reader has al-ready read elsewhere in the paper.In particular, results should not berepeated here.

(2) Do not discuss decision making inthe conclusion.

(3) Studies that neglect their ultimateapplication have low relevance.

(4) Suggestions for further study can bemade here.

For example:Within the introduction the authorstated that a serious problem was de-termined in typewritten documentsof a specific archival collection, alldated between 1970 to 1980. Mostof the documents show a dark bluehalo around the ink lines that im-pede photocopying. The researchquestion was to determine how muchof the collection currently presentedthis decay and to predict the long-term risk to the collection. The aimof the study was to formulate a pre-servation and, if necessary, a conser-vation treatment strategy for the af-fected collection. In such a case, theconclusions would be the place to in-form the reader that a prediction mo-del for typewritten documents wasdeveloped and made accessible forgeneral use. This in turn facilitatedthe formulation of adequate preser-vation strategies.

The Acknowledgements Acknowledging the help of institutes,colleagues or funding organs is al-ways worthwhile: it is simply goodmanners. Personal reflections canbe included here. Colleagues thatcontributed to a study should alwaysbe identified together with their insti-tutes, cities and countries.

Also Important

Personalization should be avoided(e.g., ‘I did’, ‘we decided’) with ex-ception of acknowledgements. It hasproven useful to ask colleagues toread a manuscript before submissionas they can judge if the problem isrelevant, the message clear and if thepaper is written logically and com-prehensively. However colleaguesshould be aware that the author ismore interested in critical commentsthan in compliments.

Final Remarks

Editors of journals all over the worldthat focus on the conservation of cul-tural heritage have one major pro-blem: the difficulty conservators havein publishing. Many conservators eit-her have a limited experience in writ-ing papers or the scientific methodo-logy leaves a lot to be desired (Horie

2007: 60). For the editors this is aproblematic situation as their aim isto maintain a certain quality levelwithout simultaneously discouragingpotential authors. Interdisciplinarystudies turn out to be most promisingcombining the experience of collea-gues of different disciplines. The edi-tors and publishers of the ‘Papier-Restaurierung’ emphatically invitepaper conservators to publish! It ishoped that this contribution is a firststep in making publishing a challen-ge instead of a bother for author andeditor.

AcknowledgementsIn the first place, I would like to thankall the conservators and other collea-gues that have made the effort to pu-blish papers in the ‘PapierRestaurie-rung’. Without their work, the journalwould not be able to provide useful in-formation four times a year for the rea-ders. Also, my thanks go to the editorsand publishers of the journal for thefruitful co-operation during the pastyears. I would like to particularly thankFrank Ligterink (Instituut Collectie Ne-derland, Amsterdam) for the valuablediscussions we have had on the requi-rements for papers on conservationscience. I am also grateful to AnnaBülow (National Archives, London),Jennifer Barnett (Bully, France), BirgitVinther Hansen (Royal Library, Copen-hagen) and Claire Phan Tan Luu (Uni-versité Paris 1, Sorbonne, Paris) fortheir critical reading and comments.For language proof reading I would liketo especially acknowledge the work ofJennifer Barnett.

Endnote* This article will be available online at

http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/iada/PR_writing.pdf. See also the ‘Guide-lines for authors’ at http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/iada/PR_Guidelines_en.pdf [In German: http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/iada/PR_Guidelines_de.pdf]

ReferencesGoldreich, Odet (2004): How to writea paper (www.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il/~oded/PS/re-writing.pdf).

Horie, Velson (2007): Can conservatorsread (or write)? In: ICON News, No. 8,p. 60 (www.icon.org.uk/index.php?id=184&option=com_content&task=view).

AuthorBirgit Reissland, Dipl. Rest., Nether-lands Institute for Cultural Heritage,Conservation Research, Gabriel Metsu-straat 8, 1071 EA Amsterdam, TheNetherlands, Tel. +31-20-3054702,Fax +31-20-3054700,[email protected]

publizieren - iada-home.org · conservation treatments. scientific papers are peer reviewed. the...

Documents