I remember when Volume 1, Issue 1 of Advances in Archaeological Practice (AAP) was published in 2013. I was a graduate student at the time, undertaking dissertation research on the processes of inclusion and exclusion in the archaeological data collection process. I was deeply interested in a new journal that would, as Christopher Dore put it in his editorial note to the inaugural issue, “embrace the full range of topics about archaeological practice: from philosophy to technology” (2013). I signed up for content alerts immediately.

Advances in Archaeological Practice, then as now, fills a gap in the landscape of publishing in archaeology. Rather than offering another outlet for publication of research findings, it stands out for its focus on the activity implicated in research and the stewardship of the past. AAP papers are frequently about fieldwork, but unlike journals solely focused on field-based archaeology, AAP also invites conversations on data management, museum curation, and citation practice. There are other journals with ‘method’ and/or ‘theory’ in their title, but which lack the pragmatism and solution orientation apparent in AAP. In terms of tone, AAP papers often speak scientific language, but are differentiated from other archaeological science journals in their accessibility and applicability. The content of AAP is meant to be shared and adapted to new, particular use cases.

Sarah Herr, Christina Rieth, and Sjoerd van der Linde have led the journal since 2016 with evident vision, leadership, and compassion. They have welcomed papers that truly demonstrate the creativity of our discipline and, in particular, papers focused on collaboration with diverse communities. They established the frequency of themed issues which have enabled a variety of archaeologists not only to publish, but to take on editorial roles and build professional relationships with one another. They have uplifted student authors and worked internally on gender equity at all stages of the publication process. They inaugurated the journal’s first Associate Editor of Reproducibility, ensuring that Advances itself exists at the forefront of research best practices. Last year, Advances received its first impact factor rating– 1.9– a number which reflects these editors’ commitment to making Advances a place where authors, reviewers, and editors work together to publish forward thinking work relevant to archaeologists working across a variety of sectors.

As the incoming editor of AAP, my vision for the journal is one that capitalizes on the unique positioning of the journal, leaning into its existing strengths and specific, necessary voice. I want to continue to take the “advances” portion of the title seriously, and reinforce AAP as the archaeological journal of innovation– the go-to resource for anyone interested in what is new and, indeed, upcoming in how archaeology gets done. This is the venue for reporting on interventions we are trying out, and how we are adapting to contemporary challenges to practicing archaeology. AAP is the journal where authors ask: what does the future of doing archaeology look like? What skills and priorities are demanded by the future of archaeology? What objects, technologies, and people will it rely upon, and how? I aim to continue to establish AAP as the location for witnessing these prospects become practical.

I seek to support and promote work that brings method and theory together in meaningful ways. My own research has interrogated how the methodologies and arrangements of archaeological fieldwork have marginalized particular perspectives on the archaeological process and the human past. I have experimented with changing data collection strategies to include a wider range of voices, and with site conservation approaches rooted in both traditional knowledge and laboratory-based results. Investigating ‘practice,’ to me, requires taking seriously the material realities of the tools and implements that we use as well as the questions we are using them to answer and the ethical entanglements that they entail. My goal is to cement AAP’s reputation as the place where abstract ideals about what archaeological practice should look like are grounded in the literal machinery of the places where we do archaeology, and where the exciting capacities of groundbreaking technologies coming to archaeology are tethered to the needs and priorities of the people who will be most affected by applying those technologies.

AAP’s shift to an open access model, importantly, is another example of serving as a model for the future of archaeological practice. We are living in a time of voracious, even dangerous doubt about archaeology, as pseudoarchaeologists spread conspiracy theories about ancient aliens, Atlantis, and Gobekli Tepe and lead campaigns of hate and threats against public-facing archaeologists. To me, AAP as an open access publication will play a crucial role in breaking down barriers between archaeologists and lay audiences. Its accessibility in tone, length, and now the absence of a paywall positions the journal as key to engendering transparency in archaeology. Showing and sharing clearly how archaeologists do what we do– while also demonstrating that much of that work is specialized, scrutinized, and scientific– is an important component to building trust with skeptical communities who otherwise may feel that archaeological work is black-boxed and hidden from them.

In short, my vision for AAP in this next phase is of a journal that maps out, in concrete and accessible terms, what the future of doing archaeology will look like. My goal is for reading AAP to feel like a full-color vision of archaeologists at work, innovating and adapting to the challenges of today and tomorrow. I want AAP, internally, to adopt and advance models for responsive editorial leadership through emerging controversies, and externally, to be the model for transparency in archaeological publication. These are values that I have held and aspired to in my own career thus far, and I will be honored to bring them to AAP in my capacity as editor.