2022
DOI: 10.17605/osf.io/3d6xx
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Open Science in Archaeology

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
5

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It is widely acknowledged that open science and open archaeology have been steadily developing worldwide in recent years (Kansa and Kansa 2013;Lake 2012;Marwick et al 2017). Digital archaeology has undoubtedly facilitated progress in discussions about sharing the knowledge generated, not only through publications but also through databases and methodologies that enable better reproducibility of results (Marwick 2017;Marwick and Birch 2018;Marwick and Schmidt 2020).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…It is widely acknowledged that open science and open archaeology have been steadily developing worldwide in recent years (Kansa and Kansa 2013;Lake 2012;Marwick et al 2017). Digital archaeology has undoubtedly facilitated progress in discussions about sharing the knowledge generated, not only through publications but also through databases and methodologies that enable better reproducibility of results (Marwick 2017;Marwick and Birch 2018;Marwick and Schmidt 2020).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, open science is more than just open access. UNESCO has approved a definition agreed upon by member countries on Open Science, defining it as: (Marwick et al 2017). Likewise, we understand open archaeology as the disciplinary expression of the recommendations of open science applied to archaeological practice.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Despite the increasing application of GM analyses to assess the variability of lithic artefacts, more effort is required to reach higher scientific standards for scanning and recording 3D meshes, as well as subsequent data handling, standardisation of landmark configurations for comparability and reproducibility, and the sharing of lab protocols and raw data to support Open Science compliant practices [ 48 ]. As data acquisition, handling, and analytical procedures are much more complex with 3D GM approaches compared to traditional linear morphometrics, there is increasing demand for the sharing of methods and data, which ensures transparency for independent research validation and cross-study comparability.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These types of approaches have additional benefits for decreasing the carbon footprint associated with accessing multiple international samples and fostering knowledge-sharing through dual project development and the division of responsibilities so that both foreign and local researchers take on principal roles within a given project, which is particularly crucial across the Global North-South divide (Chirikure 2015;Douglass et al 2020;Else, 2022). Indeed, collaborative approaches accord with the open science initiative in archaeology, which advocates that data stewardship should be centered around researchers collecting and sharing data on behalf of the scientific community, as opposed for the betterment of a single individual's career (Marwick et al 2017).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%