CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 179

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Computational Reproducibility in Archaeological Research: Basic Principles and a Case Study of Their Implementation

Marwick, Ben·2017·Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory
DOI 10.1007/s10816-015-9272-9

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10816-015-9272-9

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 9 references

Research works printed but not linked: 102

  1. Abari, K. (2012). Reproducible research in speech sciences. International Journal of Computer Science Issues, 9(6), 43–52. Retrieved from http://www.ijcsi.org/papers/IJCSI-9-6-2-43-52.pdf
  2. Arbuckle, B. S., Kansa, S. W., Kansa, E., Orton, D., Çakırlar, C., Gourichon, L., & Würtenberger, D. (2014). Data sharing reveals complexity in the westward spread of domestic animals across neolithic Turkey. PloS One, 9(6), e99845. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0099845 . · DOI
  3. Baggerly, K. A., & Coombes, K. R. (2009). Deriving chemosensitivity from cell lines: forensic bioinformatics and reproducible research in high-throughput biology. The Annals of Applied Statistics, 1309–1334. · DOI
  4. Barnes, N. (2010). Publish your computer code: it is good enough. Nature News, 467(7317), 753–753. doi: 10.1038/467753a . · DOI
  5. Bassi, S. (2007). A primer on Python for life science researchers. PLoS Computational Biology, 3(11). doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.0030199 · DOI
  6. Baumer, B., & Udwin, D. (2015). R markdown. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics, 7(3), 167–177. doi: 10.1002/wics.1348 . · DOI
  7. Baumer, B., Cetinkaya-Rundel, M., Bray, A., Loi, L., & Horton, N. J. (2014). R markdown: Integrating a reproducible analysis tool into introductory statistics. Technology Innovations in Statistics Education, 8(1). Retrieved from http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/90b2f5xh · DOI
  8. Beale, N. (2012). How community archaeology can make use of open data to achieve further its objectives. World Archaeology, 44(4), 612–633. · DOI
  9. Begley, C. G., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2015). Reproducibility in science improving the standard for basic and preclinical research. Circulation Research, 116(1), 116–126. doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.114.303819 . · DOI · Paper page
  10. Bivand, R. S., Pebesma, E. J., Gomez-Rubio, V., & Pebesma, E. J. (2008). Applied spatial data analysis with R (Vol. 747248717). Springer.
  11. Bocinsky, R. K. (2014). Extrinsic site defensibility and landscape-based archaeological inference: an example from the northwest coast. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 35, 164–176. · DOI
  12. Bocinsky, R. K., & Kohler, T. A. (2014). A 2,000-year reconstruction of the rain-fed maize agricultural niche in the US southwest. Nature Communications, 5. · DOI
  13. Boettiger, C. (2015). An introduction to docker for reproducible research. SIGOPS Operating System Review, 49(1), 71–79. doi: 10.1145/2723872.2723882 . · DOI · Paper page
  14. Boettiger, C., Hart, T., Chamberlain, S., & Ram, K. (2015). Building software, building community: lessons from the rOpenSci project. Journal of Open Research Software, 1(1), e8. · DOI
  15. Bonhomme, V., Picq, S., Gaucherel, C., & Claude, J. (2014). Momocs: outline analysis using r. Journal of Statistical Software, 56(13), 1–24. doi: 10.18637/jss.v056.i13 . · DOI
  16. Borck, L., Mills, B. J., Peeples, M. A., & Clark, J. J. (2015). Are social networks survival networks? An example from the late pre-Hispanic US southwest. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 22(1), 33–57. · DOI
  17. Borgman, C. L. (2012). The conundrum of sharing research data. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(6), 1059–1078. · DOI
  18. Buckheit, J. B., & Donoho, D. L. (1995). WaveLab and reproducible research. In A. Antoniadis & G. Oppenheim (Eds.), Wavelets and statistics (pp. 55–81). Springer New York. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/chapter/ 10.1007/978-1-4612-2544-7_5 · DOI
  19. Chambers, J. M. (2009). Software for data analysis: Programming with R (1st ed. 2008. Corr. 2nd printing 2009 edition.). New York: Springer.
  20. Clarkson, C., Smith, M., Marwick, B., Fullagar, R., Wallis, L. A., Faulkner, P., & Florin, S. A. (2015). The archaeology, chronology and stratigraphy of Madjedbebe (Malakunanja II): a site in northern australia with early occupation. Journal of Human Evolution, 83, 46–64. doi: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2015.03.014 . · DOI · Paper page
  21. Contreras, D. A., & Meadows, J. (2014). Summed radiocarbon calibrations as a population proxy: a critical evaluation using a realistic simulation approach. Journal of Archaeological Science, 52, 591–608. · DOI
  22. Crema, E., Edinborough, K., Kerig, T., & Shennan, S. (2014). An approximate bayesian computation approach for inferring patterns of cultural evolutionary change. Journal of Archaeological Science, 50, 160–170. · DOI
  23. Dafoe, A. (2014). Science deserves better: the imperative to share complete replication files. PS: Political Science & Politics, 47(01), 60–66. doi: 10.1017/S104909651300173X . · DOI
  24. Delescluse, M., Franconville, R., Joucla, S., Lieury, T., & Pouzat, C. (2012). Making neurophysiological data analysis reproducible: why and how? Journal of Physiology-Paris, 106(3–4), 159–170. doi: 10.1016/j.jphysparis.2011.09.011 . · DOI
  25. Donoho, D. L., Maleki, A., Rahman, I. U., Shahram, M., & Stodden, V. (2009). Reproducible research in computational harmonic analysis. Computing in Science & Engineering, 11(1), 8–18. doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2009.15 . · DOI
  26. Drake, W. H. A. H., Lee, B., & Wills, W. (2014). Strontium isotopes and the reconstruction of the Chaco regional system: evaluating uncertainty with bayesian mixing models. PloS One, 9(5), e95580. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0095580 . · DOI
  27. Dudley, J. T., & Butte, A. J. (2010). Reproducible in silico research in the era of cloud computing. Nature Biotechnology, 28(11), 1181–1185. doi: 10.1038/nbt1110-1181 . · DOI
  28. Dye, T. S. (2011). A model-based age estimate for polynesian colonization of Hawai’i. Archaeology in Oceania, 46(3), 130–138. · DOI
  29. Eglen, S. J. (2009). A quick guide to teaching R programming to computational biology students. PLoS Computational Biology, 5(8), e1000482. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000482 . · DOI
  30. Faris, J., Kolker, E., Szalay, A., Bradlow, L., Deelman, E., Feng, W., & Kolker, E. (2011). Communication and data-intensive science in the beginning of the 21st century. Omics: A Journal of Integrative Biology, 15(4), 213–215. · DOI
  31. Gandrud, C. (2013a). Github: a tool for social data development and verification in the cloud. The Political Methodologist, 20(2), 7–16.
  32. Gandrud, C. (2013b). Reproducible research with R and RStudio. CRC Press.
  33. Gentleman, R., & Temple Lang, D. (2007). Statistical analyses and reproducible research. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 16(1), 1–23. doi: 10.1198/106186007X178663 . · DOI
  34. Glatard, T., Lewis, L. B., Ferreira da Silva, R., Adalat, R., Beck, N., Lepage, C., & Evans, A. C. (2015). Reproducibility of neuroimaging analyses across operating systems. Frontiers in Neuroinformatics, 9, 12. doi: 10.3389/fninf.2015.00012 . · DOI
  35. Gleditsch, N. P., & Strand, H. (2003). Posting your data: will you be scooped or will you be famous? International Studies Perspectives, 4(1), 72–107. doi: 10.1111/1528-3577.04105 . · DOI
  36. Guedes, J. d., Jin, G., & Bocinsky, R. K. (2015). The impact of climate on the spread of rice to north-eastern China: a new look at the data from shandong province. PloS One, 10(6), e0130430. · DOI
  37. Haddock, S. H. D., & Dunn, C. W. (2011). Practical computing for biologists. MA: Sinauer Associates Sunderland.
  38. Hatton, L., & Roberts, A. (1994). How accurate is scientific software? IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 20(10), 785–797. doi: 10.1109/32.328993 . · DOI
  39. Healy, K. (2011). Choosing your workflow applications. The Political Methodologist, 18(2), 9–18.
  40. Henley, M., & Kemp, R. (2008). Open source software: an introduction. Computer Law & Security Review, 24(1), 77–85. · DOI
  41. Henneken, E. A., & Accomazzi, A. (2011). Linking to data - effect on citation rates in astronomy. CoRR, abs/1111.3618. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.3618 · arXiv
  42. Herndon, T., Ash, M., & Pollin, R. (2014). Does high public debt consistently stifle economic growth? A critique of Reinhart and Rogoff. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 38(2), 257–279. doi: 10.1093/cje/bet075 . · DOI
  43. Hoffa, C., Mehta, G., Freeman, T., Deelman, E., Keahey, K., Berriman, B., & Good, J. (2008). On the use of cloud computing for scientific workflows. In IEEE fourth international conference on eScience, 2008. eScience’08 (pp. 640–645). doi: 10.1109/eScience.2008.167 · DOI
  44. Howe, B. (2012). Virtual appliances, cloud computing, and reproducible research. Computing in Science & Engineering, 14(4), 36–41. doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2012.62 . · DOI
  45. Ince, D. C., Hatton, L., & Graham-Cumming, J. (2012). The case for open computer programs. Nature, 482(7386), 485–488. doi: 10.1038/nature10836 . · DOI
  46. Janssen, M. A., Alessa, L. N., Barton, M., Bergin, S., & Lee, A. (2008). Towards a community framework for agent-based modelling. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 11(2), 6.
  47. Jones, Z. M. (2013). Git/GitHub, transparency, and legitimacy in quantitative research. The Political Methodologist, 21(1), 6–7. Retrieved from http://zmjones.com/static/papers/git.pdf
  48. Joppa, L. N., McInerny, G., Harper, R., Salido, L., Takeda, K., O’Hara, K., & Emmott, S. (2013). Troubling trends in scientific software use. Science, 340(6134), 814–815. · DOI
  49. Kahle, D., & Wickham, H. (2013). Ggmap: spatial visualization with ggplot2. The R Journal, 5(1), 144–161. · DOI
  50. Kansa, E. (2012). Openness and archaeology’s information ecosystem. World Archaeology, 44(4), 498–520. · DOI
  51. Keeling, K. B., & Pavur, R. J. (2007). A comparative study of the reliability of nine statistical software packages. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 51(8), 3811–3831. doi: 10.1016/j.csda.2006.02.013 . · DOI
  52. King, G. (1995). Replication, replication. PS: Political Science & Politics, 28(03), 444–452.
  53. Kintigh, K. (2006). The promise and challenge of archaeological data integration. American Antiquity, 71(3), 567–578. doi: 10.2307/40035365 . · DOI
  54. Kintigh, K. W., Altschul, J. H., Beaudry, M. C., Drennan, R. D., Kinzig, A. P., & Kohler, T. A. (2014). Grand challenges for archaeology. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(3), 879–880. · DOI · Paper page
  55. Knuth, D. E. (1984). Literate programming. The Computer Journal, 27(2), 97–111. · DOI
  56. Laine, C., Goodman, S. N., Griswold, M. E., & Sox, H. C. (2007). Reproducible research: moving toward research the public can really trust. Annals of Internal Medicine, 146(6), 450–453. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-146-6-200703200-00154 . · DOI · Paper page
  57. Lang, S. (1993). Questions of scientific responsibility: the Baltimore case. Ethics & Behavior, 3(1), 3–72. doi: 10.1207/s15327019eb0301_1 . · DOI
  58. Leisch, F., Eugster, M., & Hothorn, T. (2011). Executable papers for the R community: the R2 platform for reproducible research. Procedia Computer Science, 4, 618–626. · DOI
  59. Lowe, K. M., Wallis, L. A., Pardoe, C., Marwick, B., Clarkson, C., Manne, T., & Fullagar, R. (2014). Ground-penetrating radar and burial practices in western Arnhem Land, Australia. Archaeology in Oceania, 49(3), 148–157. · DOI
  60. Mackay, A., Sumner, A., Jacobs, Z., Marwick, B., Bluff, K., & Shaw, M. (2014). Putslaagte 1 (PL1), the Doring river, and the later middle stone age in southern Africa’s winter rainfall zone. Quaternary International, 350, 43–58. · DOI
  61. Mair, P., Hofmann, E., Gruber, K., Hatzinger, R., Zeileis, A., & Hornik, K. (2015). Motivation, values, and work design as drivers of participation in the r open source project for statistical computing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(48), 14788–14792. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1506047112 . · DOI
  62. Markowetz, F. (2015). Five selfish reasons to work reproducibly. Genome Biology, 16. · DOI
  63. Marwick, B. (2013). Multiple optima in Hoabinhian flaked stone artefact palaeoeconomics and palaeoecology at two archaeological sites in northwest Thailand. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 32(4), 553–564. · DOI
  64. McCullough, B. (2007). Got replicability? The _journal of money, credit and banking_ archive. Econ Journal Watch, 4(3), 326–337.
  65. McCullough, B., & Vinod, H. D. (2003). Verifying the solution from a nonlinear solver: a case study. American Economic Review, 93(3), 873–892. doi: 10.1257/000282803322157133 . · DOI · Paper page
  66. McCullough, B., McGeary, K. A., & Harrison, T. D. (2006). Lessons from the JMCB archive. Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking, 38(4), 1093–1107. doi: 10.1353/mcb.2006.0061 . · DOI · Paper page
  67. McCullough, B., McGeary, K. A., & Harrison, T. D. (2008). Do economics journal archives promote replicable research? The Canadian Journal of Economics / Revue Canadienne d’Economique, 41(4), 1406–1420. · DOI
  68. Miguel, E., Camerer, C., Casey, K., Cohen, J., Esterling, K. M., Gerber, A., & Van der Laan, M. (2014). Promoting transparency in social science research. Science (New York, N.Y.), 343(6166), 30–31. doi: 10.1126/science.1245317 . · DOI
  69. Miller, G. (2006). A scientist’s nightmare: software problem leads to five retractions. Science, 314(5807), 1856–1857. doi: 10.1126/science.314.5807.1856 . · DOI
  70. Morandat, F., Hill, B., Osvald, L., & Vitek, J. (2012). Evaluating the design of the R language. In ECOOP 2012–Object-oriented programming (pp. 104–131). Springer. · DOI
  71. Morin, A., Urban, J., & Sliz, P. (2012). A quick guide to software licensing for the scientist-programmer. PLoS Computational Biology, 8(7), e1002598. · DOI
  72. Narasimhan, B., et al. (2005). Lisp-stat to Java to R. Journal of Statistical Software, 13(4), 1–10. · DOI
  73. Noble, W. S. (2009). A quick guide to organizing computational biology projects. PLoS Computational Biology, 5(7), e1000424. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000424 . · DOI
  74. Nowakowski, P., Ciepiela, E., Harżlak, D., Kocot, J., Kasztelnik, M., Bartyński, T., & Malawski, M. (2011). The collage authoring environment. Procedia Computer Science, 4, 608–617. · DOI
  75. Peeples, M. A., & Schachner, G. (2012). Refining correspondence analysis-based ceramic seriation of regional data sets. Journal of Archaeological Science, 39(8), 2818–2827. · DOI
  76. Peng, R. D. (2009). Reproducible research and biostatistics. Biostatistics, 10(3), 405–408. doi: 10.1093/biostatistics/kxp014 . · DOI
  77. Perkel, J. M. (2015). Programming: pick up Python. Nature, 518(7537), 125–126. doi: 10.1038/518125a . · DOI
  78. Piwowar, H. A., & Vision, T. J. (2013). Data reuse and the open data citation advantage. Peer Journal, 1, e175. · DOI
  79. Plummer, M., & others. (2003). JAGS: A program for analysis of Bayesian graphical models using gibbs sampling. In Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on distributed statistical computing (Vol. 124, p. 125). Technische Universit at Wien.
  80. Ram, K. (2013). Git can facilitate greater reproducibility and increased transparency in science. Source Code for Biology and Medicine, 8(1), 7. · DOI
  81. Reich, V. (2008). CLOCKSS—it takes a community. The Serials Librarian, 54(1-2), 135–139. · DOI
  82. Reshef, D. N., Reshef, Y. A., Finucane, H. K., Grossman, S. R., McVean, G., Turnbaugh, P. J., & Sabeti, P. C. (2011). Detecting novel associations in large data sets. Science, 334(6062), 1518–1524. doi: 10.1126/science.1205438 . · DOI
  83. Richards, J. D. (1997). Preservation and re-use of digital data: the role of the archaeology data service. Antiquity, 71(274), 1057–1057. · DOI
  84. Sandve, G. K., Nekrutenko, A., Taylor, J., & Hovig, E. (2013). Ten simple rules for reproducible computational research. PLoS Computational Biology, 9(10), e1003285. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003285 . · DOI · Paper page
  85. Sarkar, D. (2008). Lattice: Multivariate data visualization with R. Springer Science & Business Media. · DOI
  86. Schulte, E., Davison, D., Dye, T., & Dominik, C. (2012). A multi-language computing environment for literate programming and reproducible research. Journal of Statistical Software, 46(3), 1–24. Retrieved from http://yuyang0.github.io/static/doc/babel.pdf · DOI
  87. Schwab, M., Karrenbach, M., & Claerbout, J. (2000). Making scientific computations reproducible. Computing in Science & Engineering, 2(6), 61–67. · DOI
  88. Sears, J. (2011). Data sharing effect on article citation rate in paleoceanography. In AGU fall meeting abstracts (Vol. 1, p. 1628).
  89. Sharpe, D. (2013). Why the resistance to statistical innovations? Bridging the communication gap. Psychological Methods, 18(4), 572. Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/met/18/4/572/ · DOI
  90. Shennan, S. J., Crema, E. R., & Kerig, T. (2015). Isolation-by-distance, homophily, and’core’ vs’.package’ cultural evolution models in neolithic europe. Evolution and Human Behavior, 36(2), 103–109. · DOI
  91. Stanisic, L., Legrand, A., & Danjean, V. (2015). An effective git and org-mode based workflow for reproducible research. ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review, 49(1), 61–70. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id = 2723881 · DOI
  92. Stodden, V. (2009). The legal framework for reproducible scientific research: licensing and copyright. Computing in Science & Engineering, 11(1), 35–40. doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2009.19 . · DOI
  93. Stodden, V., & Miguez, S. (2014). Best practices for computational science: software infrastructure and environments for reproducible and extensible research. Journal of Open Research Software, 2(1), e21. doi: 10.5334/jors.ay . · DOI
  94. Tenopir, C., Allard, S., Douglass, K., Aydinoglu, A. U., Wu, L., Read, E., & Frame, M. (2011). Data sharing by scientists: practices and perceptions. PloS One, 6(6), e21101. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0021101 . · DOI · Paper page
  95. Tippmann, S. (2014). Programming tools: adventures with R. Nature, 517(7532), 109–110. doi: 10.1038/517109a . · DOI
  96. Vandewalle, P. (2012). Code sharing is associated with research impact in image processing. Computing in Science and Engineering, 14(4), 42–47. · DOI
  97. VanPool, T. L., & Leonard, R. D. (2010). Quantitative analysis in archaeology (1 edition.). Chichester, West Sussex, U.K. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. · DOI
  98. Vihinen, M. (2015). No more hidden solutions in bioinformatics. Nature, 521(7552), 261–261. doi: 10.1038/521261a . · DOI
  99. Wickham, H. (2014). Advanced R (1 edition.). Boca Raton, FL: Chapman; Hall/CRC.
  100. Wickham, H. (2015). R packages (1 edition.). Sebastopol, Calif.: O’Reilly Media.
  101. Widemann, B. T. y, Bolz, C. F., & Grelck, C. (2013). The functional programming language r and the paradigm of dynamic scientific programming. In H.-W. Loidl & R. Peña (Eds.), Trends in functional programming (Vol. 7829, pp. 182–197). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-40447-4_12 · DOI
  102. Xie, Y. (2013). Dynamic documents with R and knitr. CRC Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 179

Metadata

Authors
Marwick, B.
Venue
Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2016-01-07
Volume
24
Issue
2
Pages
424-450
ISSN
  • 1072-5369
  • 1573-7764
DOI
10.1007/s10816-015-9272-9
Cited by
179
References
9
Language
en
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Computational Reproducibility in Archaeological Research: Basic Principles and a Case Study of Their Implementation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s10816-015-9272-9
The paper
Marwick, B. (2017). Computational Reproducibility in Archaeological Research: Basic Principles and a Case Study of Their Implementation. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-015-9272-9