Resources
Sign up for news alerts
Jobs
Contact
Chinese language site
Geo-scientific publishing in the industry setting
by Neil Phillips, Editor, Applied Earth Science
The approach to scientific publishing varies greatly between companies. In some companies, publishing regularly will be strongly encouraged and after a few years these groups can establish a formidable library of published works which may be globally recognised. Western Mining Corporation used this approach to document their Kambalda nickel deposits and they were highly regarded by their industry peers (13 papers in Economic Geology, volume 76, number 6, 1981). Scientific publishing can also be used as a means to address and regularly solve important mine and exploration problems. From 1995 to 2000, Great Central Mines used this approach of identifying outstanding problems, planning a scientific program, collecting relevant data, interpreting that data, then presenting the conclusions for internal and finally, external review (20 papers in Australian Institute of Geoscientists Bulletin 32 2000; 4 papers in Yandal Gold Province, CSIRO Explores 1, 2003). For Great Central Mines, invariably something new was learned at every stage of the process; and the involvement in publishing extended deep into the geosciences team as far as the new graduates. When Great Central Mines was taken over in 2000 its geologists were especially well-regarded in their new corporate environment. Both Western Mining Corporation and Great Central Mines were well-known for their repeated exploration successes that far exceeded the industry average.
In contrast, other companies and individual operations might go for a whole decade without any significant scientific publications beyond the regular special volume-inspired deposit review. This is not to denigrate the latter but to emphasise that documentation of what is known is different from an attempt to learn more through a scientific approach to some important and resilient problem.
It is interesting to speculate why management at some companies should encourage publication of company information when the initial reaction is that this means giving up what might be proprietary information. Despite this potential loss of a competitive edge, the process of publishing, when done well, can add substantial overall value to company written reports and to individuals. The areas of value from publishing in the company environment include better communication through written reports, better geoscientists who are more thorough and adept at thinking, and higher staff retention rates.
For any operation, there is value in having well-written documentation if only because it makes the task of accessing the information easier for readers. A poorly written report means management either takes much more time extracting important details or simply does not bother reading the report at all. A poor report leaves more scope for misunderstanding of the key messages. The peer review process, in which a polished and complete manuscript is sent for independent review, requires the writer to produce their very best effort and then have experts evaluate the story, the science and the writing. The final product is always better for this peer review process. Skills learned by authors through the publication process can be retained for life.
Internal company reports commonly document only a selection of sub-disciplines and have a tendency to skirt or avoid harder areas or thorny problems (more than one author has reported that “I have left the structural geology out of the report because we were not taught structure at university”). Peer review, being independent, takes a different approach to what is required to make a complete scientific story and a reviewer might easily suggest that the structural setting of an orogenic gold deposit is critical to its understanding and needs to be included. Hard work might be required by the author to fill this gap during the re-writing process but the final product will have more value for the company, readers and author.
The personal development aspect of publishing should not be under-rated. Any young geologist in industry will feel positive about the acceptance and publication of their first and subsequent papers. Being asked by their company to put together a manuscript for publication is a clear message of support and recognition, and a valuable form of personal professional development. The alternative of being ignored, undervalued or taken for granted are common reasons for geologists leaving a company. From one company the message might be ‘restrict your writing to an internal report and do not bother about the extra effort’; and from another company the message might be to invest the time and effort and make this a good publication. In the first example, the corporate message of ‘near enough is good enough in reporting’ will tend to be interpreted more widely in an operational environment.
A successful publishing exercise involves the team of authors agreeing an outline and ruthlessly deciding what information is in and what is out. The direction of the paper needs enunciation with a presentation of hypotheses or models that will be tested, reporting of quality and relevant data, and then sophisticated scientific arguments leading to a conclusion and likely elimination of some alternatives by falsification. Being part of a team of authors going through these stages of publication is a wonderful learning process, and a skill that is easily retained during a career.
