The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Open Science in Archaeology
Preprint — published as 10.17605/osf.io/3d6xx
Abstract
In archaeology, we are accustomed to investing great effort into collecting data from fieldwork, museum collections, and other sources, followed by detailed description, rigorous analysis, and in many cases ending with publication of our findings in short, highly concentrated reports or journal articles. Very often, these publications are all that is visible of this lengthy process, and even then, most of our journal articles are only accessible to scholars at institutions paying subscription fees to the journal publishers. While this traditional model of the archaeological research process has long been effective at generating new knowledge about our past, it is increasingly at odds with current norms of practice in other sciences. Often described as ‘open science’, these new norms include data stewardship instead of data ownership, transparency in the analysis process instead of secrecy, and public involvement instead of exclusion. While the concept of open science is not new in archaeology (e.g., see Lake 2012 and other papers in that volume), a less transparent model often prevails, unfortunately. We believe that there is much to be gained, both for individual researchers and for the discipline, from broader application of open science practices. In this article, we very briefly describe these practices and their benefits to researchers. We introduce the Society of American Archaeology’s Open Science Interest Group (OSIG) as a community to help archaeologists engage in and benefit from open science practices, and describe how it will facilitate the adoption of open science in archaeology.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
In the citing paper
“Greater attention is now given to Open Science and documentation of data processing (Marwick et al. 2017) as well as quality issues in archaeological databases throughout the research process, the impact of uncertainty on interpretation and prediction (Van Leusen, Millard, and Ducke 2009), and the potential for data re-use.”
From What We See, What We Don’t See: Data Governance, Archaeological Spatial Databases and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in an Age of Big Data (2020) · cites this paper as Marwick et al. 2017
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A manifesto for reproducible science
Munafò, M. R., Nosek, B. A., Bishop, D. V. M., Button, K. S., Chambers, C. D., Percie du Sert, N., Simonsohn, U., Wagenmakers, E.-J., Ware, J. J., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2017) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-016-0021 · Cited by 3,397
Promoting an open research culture
Nosek, B. A., Alter, G., Banks, G. C., Borsboom, D., Bowman, S. D., Breckler, S. J., Buck, S., Chambers, C. D., Chin, G., Christensen, G., et al. (2015) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aab2374 · Cited by 2,708
Reproducible research in computational science
Peng, R. D. (2011) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1213847 · Cited by 1,449
What does research reproducibility mean?
Goodman, S. N., Fanelli, D., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2016) · Science Translational Medicine · doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.aaf5027 · Cited by 1,293
Ten Simple Rules for Reproducible Computational Research
Sandve, G. K., Nekrutenko, A., Taylor, J., & Hovig, E. (2013) · PLoS Computational Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003285 · Cited by 880
How Open Science Helps Researchers Succeed
McKiernan, E. C., Bourne, P. E., Brown, C. T., Buck, S., Kenall, A., Lin, J., McDougall, D., Nosek, B. A., Ram, K., Soderberg, C. K., et al. (2016) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.16800 · Cited by 798
Open Science: One Term, Five Schools of Thought
Fecher, B., & Friesike, S. (2014) · Opening Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8_2 · Cited by 654
Promoting Transparency in Social Science Research
Miguel, E., Camerer, C., Casey, K., Cohen, J., Esterling, K. M., Gerber, A., Glennerster, R., Green, D. P., Humphreys, M., Imbens, G., et al. (2014) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1245317 · Cited by 540
Enhancing reproducibility for computational methods
Stodden, V., McNutt, M., Bailey, D. H., Deelman, E., Gil, Y., Hanson, B., Heroux, M. A., Ioannidis, J. P. A., & Taufer, M. (2016) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aah6168 · Cited by 411
Stodden, V., Guo, P., & Ma, Z. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0067111 · Cited by 257
Cited by
Yaworsky, P. M., Vernon, K. B., Spangler, J. D., Brewer, S. C., & Codding, B. F. (2020) · PLOS One · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0239424 · Cited by 104
Gupta, N., Blair, S., & Nicholas, R. (2020) · Journal of Field Archaeology · doi:10.1080/00934690.2020.1713969 · Cited by 58
Herndon, K. E., Griffin, R., Schroder, W., Murtha, T., Golden, C., Contreras, D. A., Cherrington, E., Wang, L., Bazarsky, A., Kollias, G. V., et al. (2023) · Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports · doi:10.1016/j.jasrep.2023.104094 · Cited by 21
Metadata
- Authors
- Marwick, B., Barton, C. M., Bates, L., Bollwerk, E., Bocinsky, R. K., Carter, A. K., Conrad, C., Costa, S., Crema, E. R., Davies, B., Drake, L., Dye, T. S., Giusti, D., Graham, S., Hawks, J., Huffer, D., Madsen, M. E., Neiman, F. D., Opitz, R., Riel-Salvatore, J., Riris, P., Romanowska, I., Ullah, I., & Wren, C. D.
- ORCID
- Publisher
- Open Engineering Inc
- Published
- 2017-01-25
- Cited by
- 17
- References
- 14
- Type
- Preprint
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: Open Science in Archaeology. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.31235/osf.io/72n8g
- The paper
- Marwick, B., Barton, C. M., Bates, L., Bollwerk, E., Bocinsky, R. K., Carter, A. K., Conrad, C., Costa, S., Crema, E. R., Davies, B., Drake, L., Dye, T. S., Giusti, D., Graham, S., Hawks, J., Huffer, D., Madsen, M. E., Neiman, F. D., Opitz, R., . . . Wren, C. D. (2017). Open Science in Archaeology. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/72n8g
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
