Comment by Bill Olkowski: Publications and Authorships
This scanned collection is a work in progress, as I have managed to save copies of most of our publications starting when we were at UC, Berkeley, next at CIAS, and last at Bio Integral Resource Center (BIRC). Some have been lost, but I am making efforts to local missing copies. Most of the following, however, are BIRC projects. This collection has been in storage for over 20 years and there are gaps and drafts along with more formal publications. Since many workers or members of the public did not see most of these documents and they have a great deal of useful information, I am making them available as contributions in the public domain. Most of this work was supported by public agencies and ourselves it should be more widely available. Normally a scientist publishes her/his work in some sort of journal. Instead we chose to create our own publication system for most of our publications. But many others are also listed here. The list is incomplete as some have been lost due to rain damage.
One of the drafts worth mentioning is the Audubon pamphlet, listed under Misc below. This was the draft we submitted to Audubon but the DC program people in charge of the project decided to mostly rewrite it, so it was never used in this form. It has some good points and we are placing it in the public domain.
Another example of unpublished material is the tree list for Palo Alto, in the city folder. Every city we worked with had a tree list and if they didn’t we compiled one. These lists could be a good starting point for planning for urban foresters as one of the ideas I developed over the decade we worked with shade trees is that more diversity would be beneficial. Greater diversity could be used as a sort of hedge against future imports of exotic insects that become pestiferous.
In all cases we indicate authorships and have included other than ourselves when the employees did all the work and we had a minor role in some editing. Helga and I worked together on all the publications that carry our name. In addition, Sheila Daar was always a critical editor after she joined us. I frequently started a document, gave it to Helga, got it back, incorporated her comments and additions, and then we passed it to Sheila. In many cases it came back from Sheila with so many deletions, suggestions, questions, etc. that it had to have major revisions. I viewed these almost invariably as improvements. So who was the author? In the early days of the IPM Practitioner no name appeared on the documents. Later we started to put in by-lines as more and more people submitted articles and made additions to the papers, more so that they could be cited in other articles. In retrospect all or most of the early IPMP articles, book reviews, abstracts, etc. should have my name and also Helga’s, later all three of us. The situation differed if Sheila wrote the first copy. Her clarity of language was greater than ours so we only added details at infrequent times. Since we were directors of the non-profit, all the documents produced, especially by BIRC, carried our names as primary authors, except where others functioned in that capacity. For about 10 years or so of IPMP published items where no name is indicated my name will suffice to indicate authorship. For some clarity on authorship see the letter to Science 1981, p. 290 by H.E. Yuker (see Misc. Pubs).