| A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | AA | AB | AC | AD | AE | AF | AG | AH | AI | AJ | AK | AL | AM | AN | AO | AP | AQ | AR | AS | AT | AU | AV | AW | AX | AY | AZ | BA | BB | BC | BD | BE | BF | BG | BH | BI | BJ | BK | BL | BM | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Progress | Distribution Channel | What is your specialist area? | What is your main institution? | In relation to which of the following do you collaborate with often? | Do you analyse publicly available data? | Rank the following in descending order of importance when analysing publicly available data. To rank, please click and drag each item to the desired order. - | Do you have an ORCiD account? | Do you publish your data? | Why do you not publish your data? | On a scale of 1 to 7, in which 7 is extremely beneficial and 1 is unnecessary, how beneficial would it be to have the following? - | To what extent do you think the reuse of bioarchaeology information is important? Where 7 is essential and 1 is unnecessary. | Are there any further comments that you would like to make about the future of bioarchaeology data reuse? | What data do you typically publish? | Rank the following in descending order to what motivates you to deposit your own data. To do this, please click and drag items into your order of motivation. | In which format do you publish your data? | Where do you typically publish your data? | What is the name of that repository? | Do you normally copyright data you generate in the course of your work? | Under what licence do you normally list it? | Do you normally complete a data management plan? | To what extent do you believe the following are important to consider when making a data management plan? Where 7 is very important and 1 is completely unimportant - | Is your data typically open access? | Do you think your data could be made open access? | Why do you think this? | If you publish your research, is the raw data accessible from the reports? | Do you think there is usually a good metadata schema for your work? | Does your data have a persistent identifier? | Do you know if any data you have generated in a report has been reused? | Would you like to know? | Do you systematically document your data? | Briefly describe the process of data creation from first considering a research project, to documenting the experiment, to archiving or publishing. | On a scale of 1 to 7, how easy is this process? Where 7 is extremely easy and 1 is extremely difficult. | Are there any issues which you come across whilst carrying out the process? | What are the principal challenges that you face whilst carrying out this procedure? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2 | Selected Choice | Other | Selected Choice | Other | Site | Date | Methodology | Key results | Key images | Author's name(s) | Author's institution(s) | Provenance of sample | Equipment used | Any additional element? | Text | To have a single repository for bioarchaeology data | To link specialist reports to the fieldwork records | To document paradata | To have a single searchable interface for bioarchaeology data | Obligations to funding agency open access policy | Obligations to institution open access policy | To demonstrate biomolecular authenticity | For reviewers to replicate finding | For other researchers to replicate my findings | For other researchers to re-analyse data | To have access to my own data at a later stage | Selected Choice | Other | Selected Choice | Elsewhere | Selected Choice | Other | Data summary | Funding | FAIR data | Allocation of resources | Data security | Ethical aspects | Reusability of data | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3 | 100 | Other | Archaeology | Bournemouth University | aDNA, Zooarchaeology, Other | Archaeobotany | Yes | 2 | 1 | 4 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 3 | 5 | 10 | Yes | Yes | 1 | 6 | 6 | 1 | 7 | Raw | 5 | 6 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 7 | Comma separated value (CSV) | Specialised repository, Institutional repository | Yes | CC BY-ND | No | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | No | No | |||||||||||||||||||||
4 | 100 | Osteoarchaeology, Stable isotopes | Bournemouth University | aDNA, Osteoarchaeology, Palaeopathology, Stable isotopes | Yes | 1 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 6 | 8 | 9 | 4 | 7 | 10 | Yes | Yes | 2 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 7 | Raw | 4 | 5 | 6 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 7 | .DOCX, .XLSX | In published report | Yes | CC BY-NC | Yes | 5 | 4 | 2 | 5 | 6 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No | No | |||||||||||||||||
5 | 100 | Osteoarchaeology | University of Reading | Osteoarchaeology | No | Yes | Yes | 7 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 7 | Partly processed, Fully processed | 7 | 6 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 4 | PDF, .DOCX, .XLSX, JPEG | In published report | No | No | Yes | Yes | I am not sure | I am not sure | Yes | No | Paper records, excel spreadsheet, word document | 5 | No | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
6 | 100 | Other | Forensic Archaeology/Forensic Anthropology | University of Exeter | Osteoarchaeology, Palaeopathology, Stable isotopes, Zooarchaeology, Other | Forensic Science | Yes | 5 | 6 | 2 | 4 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 1 | 3 | 10 | Yes | Yes | 7 | 5 | 7 | 7 | 7 | The trouble that we will find with setting up a system like this, both nationally, although to a lesser extent than internationally, is a lack of consistency in data recording and processing methods. | Fully processed | 5 | 6 | 7 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | PDF, Written document, .DOCX, .XLSX | Institutional repository, In published report | No | No | Yes | No | I am not sure | I am not sure | Yes | Yes | Determine what data needs to be captured, determine which method is best of capturing it, use appropriate software/recording forms, determine what method is best for processing data, use appropriate software, consider results and which method will best explain my findings and in a manner that is easy to understand and use, apply said method and integrate it into any publications. | 4 | No | Access to software | ||||||||||||||||||
7 | 100 | Stable isotopes | aDNA, Osteoarchaeology, Palaeopathology, Stable isotopes, Zooarchaeology | Yes | 4 | 3 | 2 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 5 | 6 | 1 | relevance | Yes | Yes | 4 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 7 | Partly processed | 2 | 3 | 5 | 6 | 4 | 1 | 7 | PDF, Written document, JPEG, Comma separated value (CSV), XML | Specialised repository, Institutional repository, In published report | No | Yes | 5 | 7 | 2 | 7 | 5 | Yes | Yes | I am not sure | I am not sure | Yes | Yes | My data is usually straightforward flat file so I usually create a spreadsheet. Partially processed data is made publicly available either through inclusion in open access publication, or through supplemental information files logged with the publisher. | 6 | No | |||||||||||||||||
8 | 100 | Palaeopathology | University of York | aDNA, Osteoarchaeology, Palaeopathology, Stable isotopes, Palaeoproteomics | Yes | 1 | 2 | 5 | 3 | 7 | 6 | 8 | 4 | 9 | 10 | Yes | Yes | 6 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 6 | Partly processed | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 7 | Institutional repository, In published report | No | No | No | No | Legal | Yes | I am not sure | No | Yes | No | In most instances, I publish commercial work, rather than research projects. Unfortunately, my clients usually do NOT tell me that they are intending or are publishing my projects, which means that I usually do not find out that a project has been published until after the event. This can be extremely frustrating, since I am not able to edit the original report, change miscpnceptions by the archaeological authors, update any data, make comparative analysis or have a say over the format of the report. Most of my other publications are led by one of my academic colleagues and while I do have the chance to edit these, I have little input over the format of the publication. | 3 | Yes | See above | ||||||||||||||||||||
9 | 100 | aDNA, Stable isotopes, Zooarchaeology | University of Oxford | aDNA, Stable isotopes, Zooarchaeology | Yes | 4 | 5 | 1 | 6 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 3 | 2 | 10 | Yes | Yes | 5 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 7 | While a single repository for bioarchaeology data would be awesome, I wonder how it would be synchronised with other environmental databases. I found the environmental databased very usefull as they provide at the same time data from bioarchaeological datasets and modern referential. Also, each of them is highly specilised, offering a range of metadata going beyond the archaeological context that would be essential to preserve. | Raw, Partly processed, Fully processed | 4 | 5 | 1 | 6 | 3 | 2 | 7 | .XLSX, FASTQ | Specialised repository, In published report | No | No | Yes | Yes | I am not sure | No | No | Yes | Yes | When starting a project, I'm consistently reporting method and results in spreadsheet (I try to keep a consistent pattern although I'm often updating it to make it more readable/usefull, include further details. When publishing zooarchaeological reports, I include tables with raw counts of number of remains, and if possible the anatomical identification and taphonomy. I also try to explicitely mention where the bone remains are deposited if any researcher wanted to re-examine them, althoug it never happenned so far. When publishing analyses in stable isotopes, I include a table with all the results, for each sample, including diagenetic crietria (%C, %N, C/N). When publishing aDNA analyses, I make sure at least the aligned reads (consensus) are deposited as fasta sequences, although I'll prefer raw reads for upcomming NGS reports. These sequences are deposited on GenBank. | 4 | No | It takes time but I take that into account when scheduling my work. | |||||||||||||||||||
10 | 100 | Stable isotopes, Palaeoproteomics, Other | organic residue analysis | University of york | Stable isotopes, Other | organic residue analysis | Yes | 3 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 1 | 6 | 10 | Yes | Yes | 4 | 7 | 6 | 4 | 7 | Fully processed | 5 | 6 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 7 | PDF, .DOCX, .XLSX, Comma separated value (CSV), XML | Institutional repository, Supplemental information | No | No | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No | 1/ creation of a research project related to archaeological question adapted to the material analysed (i.e. organic residue preserved in pottery) 2/ contacting collaborator network (archaeologist, museum...) to check availability and select a representative sample 3/ sampling 4/ sample preparation and analysis & generation of raw data files stored in instrument and in Departmental server. data are also back up regularly in external drive. 5/ Data analysis => generation of result tables 6/ Interpretation and paper preparation 7/ publishing and archiving the data published (in database format as SI and/or with ADS) 5/ | 6 | Yes | Large amount of RAW data produced that are not in open format and difficult to convert => public archiving of processed data | ||||||||||||||||||
11 | 100 | Zooarchaeology | aDNA, Stable isotopes, Zooarchaeology | Yes | Yes | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | Research projects increasingly use legacy/archive data and some PhD projects now are exclusively using previously collected data. It's always challenging collecting legacy data and trying to work out biases, contexts etc. So widely -used criteria and a single repository would be extremely beneficial. | Partly processed, Fully processed | 4 | 3 | 2 | 6 | 5 | 1 | 7 | Written document | General repository, In published report | No | No | Yes | I do not publish my research | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Partly processed data goes into publication, or supplementary information. Particular projects have online repository processes, after data is published. Format varies but I'm increasingly interested in moving all old data to online open access repository but it's time consuming. Current projects will use ADS or Open Context. | 4 | Yes | Old data from 20-30 years ago not being in correct format | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
12 | 100 | Palaeoproteomics, Other | geochronology | University of York | aDNA, Stable isotopes, Palaeoproteomics | Yes | 5 | 6 | 2 | 4 | 7 | 9 | 8 | 3 | 1 | 10 | Yes | Yes | 6 | 7 | 6 | 7 | 7 | Partly processed | 5 | 6 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 7 | .DOCX, .XLSX | Specialised repository, In published report | No | Yes | 7 | 6 | 7 | 2 | 6 | 7 | 7 | Yes | Yes | I am not sure | Yes | Yes | No | Creating research question (often collaboratively), obtaining samples, logging samples into lab, tracking samples through preparation process, analysing samples, generating raw data, first pass review of data, second pass review of data, third pass review of data, preparation of manuscript, submission of manuscript, response to reviewers and changes requested, final submission of manuscript, final archiving of data in open access repository. | 4 | Yes | Submission to data repository not rewarded, and therefore put off in an arena where there is always too much to do, this easily slips down the to-do list. | |||||||||||||
13 | 100 | aDNA, Stable isotopes | York | aDNA, Osteoarchaeology, Stable isotopes, Zooarchaeology | Yes | 1 | 9 | 3 | 8 | 7 | 5 | 6 | 2 | 4 | 10 | Yes | Yes | 2 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Raw, Fully processed | 1 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 2 | 3 | 4 | PDF, .DOCX, Comma separated value (CSV), BAM | Specialised repository, Institutional repository, In published report | No | Yes | 5 | 4 | 6 | 4 | 4 | 6 | 7 | Yes | Yes | Yes | I am not sure | Yes | No | Very variable so difficult to summarize | Yes | Variable. Many associated with data ownership to validating results | |||||||||||||||
14 | 100 | Zooarchaeology | University of Sheffield | aDNA, Zooarchaeology | Yes | 1 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 3 | 9 | 10 | I've replie but I'm not sure I fully understand the question | Yes | Yes | 2 | 6 | 7 | Raw, Partly processed, Fully processed | 3 | 4 | 7 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 5 | PDF, Written document, JPEG | Specialised repository, General repository, Institutional repository, In published report | No | No | Yes | Yes | I am not sure | I am not sure | Yes | Yes | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
15 | 100 | Stable isotopes, Zooarchaeology | York | aDNA, Osteoarchaeology, Stable isotopes, Zooarchaeology | Yes | 2 | 1 | 6 | 4 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 3 | 5 | 10 | Yes | Yes | 7 | 7 | 1 | 7 | 7 | no | Fully processed | 3 | 2 | 1 | 7 | 6 | 4 | 5 | PDF, Written document, .DOCX, .XLSX, JPEG, Comma separated value (CSV) | Specialised repository, General repository, In published report | No | No | Yes | No | I am not sure | Yes | Yes | No | Plan research; obtain samples; analyse samples; obtain data from several instruments; analyse raw data; plan article; write article; publish formatted data; repeat | 7 | No | Time to process the data and deposit it at the end. | ||||||||||||||||||||
16 | 100 | Osteoarchaeology, Palaeopathology | University of Sheffield | aDNA, Stable isotopes | Yes | 3 | 2 | 1 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 4 | 5 | 10 | Availability of raw data as appendix or download | Yes | Yes | 7 | 7 | 5 | 7 | 7 | As a discipline we are behind the general archaeological practitioners and commercial operators who have the ADS and other procedures for data sharing. Yet our data is not infinitely replicable, collections have been reburied and material can be difficult to access (which is an equality issue in many ways). We should be more open to means of data sharing, but need to find a way to do this that protects the investment of time and money osteologists make to generate their data and their IP arising from this work. | Raw, Partly processed, Fully processed | 1 | 2 | 7 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 6 | .XLSX, Comma separated value (CSV) | Specialised repository, Institutional repository, In published report | Yes | CC BY-NC-SA | No | No | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes | No | This depends on the project. Some funders require detailed data management plans, but if this isnt needed I tend to have a generic plan that is based on establishment of research objectives, ID of relevant data and analysis processes, creation of suitable database, recording and inputting of data, validation, archiving of long-term copy, analysis of a different copy, archiving and backup. Publication of modified and analysed data followed by either, archiving via ADS (if the project allows and I have the rights to do this) or publication of data with doi via institutional repository ( where possible or journal requests this). This latter step is not always possible of working for/with others on projects with their own rules. | Yes | No standards for discipline, preference not to publish full datasets while research potential for my own work remains yet this can mean sitting on data for a long time, responsibility to share data that cannot be obtained otherwise (eg. for reburied skeletal collections) | ||||||||||||||||||
17 | 100 | Other | AMS dating | Oxford University | aDNA, Stable isotopes, Zooarchaeology, Palaeoproteomics | Yes | 5 | 6 | 1 | 4 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 2 | 3 | 10 | Yes | Yes | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | Raw, Fully processed | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 1 | 2 | 7 | PDF, Written document, Other - please specify file type | CT and 3D data | Specialised repository, General repository | Archaeology Data Service | Yes | CC BY | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | I am not sure | Yes | Yes | I simply publish or archive the data generated on a publicly accessible database, on a journal website or a specialist repository at the end of the research. | 5 | No | |||||||||||||||||||
18 | 100 | aDNA, Stable isotopes, Zooarchaeology, Other | osteometrics and GMM | Exeter | aDNA, Palaeopathology, Stable isotopes, Zooarchaeology, Other | GMM | Yes | 5 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 3 | 9 | 10 | I didn't really understand this question. And I guess I see equipment as being part of the method. | Yes | Yes | 7 | 7 | 5 | 7 | 7 | I have an application in about this at the moment. If it comes off, it'd be great to get you involved. I can send you the application if you email me | Partly processed | 5 | 6 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 7 | .DOCX, .XLSX, Other - please specify file type | OA Relational database | Specialised repository, In published report | No | Yes | 4 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 7 | 7 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Oh man, briefly? That's a complex question, requires a huge amount time and often meetings since the way we work is to conduct full-suite analysis on single specimens, which means that material passes through labs, getting additional codes as it runs through the pipeline. We have a masterlist but you have to trust all researchers to keep it updated (they never do) and then rigorous data-checking to clean the datasets. Individual teams may start analysing their own results but we're after full-suite, so we have to make sure that everything gets integrated - this requires more meetings to check data and get them into a useable format. By the time your at this stage, this is generally the level that we'd publish at - in papers - with linked data made available on central OA database. We'd also return data to original collections - it's important to have the correct archive numbers linked through everything so that the data can be used by the curators also, and so they can give the data to anyone else who works on the same collections/specimens. The whole process is really time-consuming, brain melting and no-one ever believes me when I say this. So researchers don't take it as seriously as I need to. Attention to detail, at every stage, thinking about multiple audiences and users is key. | 1 | Yes | See above. I'd say the biggest problem is lack of attention to detail by researchers, all researchers (myself included sometimes - rarely!) as the focus is often on getting the data as quickly as possible rather than looking to the future and the need to stitch it all back together with context and meaning. We're dealing with important, finite bio-cultural heritage and there's not quite enough respect for that sometimes. | |||||||||
19 | 100 | Palaeoproteomics | Smithsonian Institution | Stable isotopes, Palaeoproteomics | Yes | 2 | 5 | 4 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 1 | 3 | 10 | Yes | Yes | 3 | 5 | 6 | 5 | N/A | Raw, Fully processed | 4 | 5 | 3 | 6 | 1 | 2 | 7 | Comma separated value (CSV), Tab-separated values (TSV), RAW | Specialised repository | massIVE | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No | Obtain samples/plan project including confirmation of sample ownership (which museum has the collection), collect mass spectrometry data, analyze data, put RAW and analysis data on massIVE, publish paper. | 4 | No | Finding who can actually approve the sampling. | |||||||||||||||||||
20 | 100 | aDNA, Palaeoproteomics | University of British Columbia | aDNA, Osteoarchaeology, Palaeopathology, Stable isotopes, Zooarchaeology, Palaeoproteomics | Yes | 3 | 4 | 2 | 5 | 9 | 6 | 7 | 1 | 8 | 10 | Availability of Data | Yes | Yes | 2 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 6 | Raw, Partly processed, Fully processed | 2 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | .DOCX, .XLSX, JPEG, Comma separated value (CSV), XML, FASTQ, .TXT, BAM, Other - please specify file type | .mds (MALDI) | Specialised repository, In published report | No | Yes | 5 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 7 | Yes | Yes | I am not sure | Yes | No | Yes | No | Lab work is documented in lab book, DNA data is generated and raw files archived, DNA data is analysed (bioinformatic pipelines recorded), DNA data is published in raw and analyzed format with metadata. | 6 | Yes | Data storage is expensive | |||||||||||
21 | 100 | Stable isotopes, Zooarchaeology, Other | Lipid analysis | Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona | Osteoarchaeology, Stable isotopes, Zooarchaeology, Other | Lipid analysis | Yes | 1 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 3 | 5 | 10 | Yes | Yes | 4 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 7 | Need clear guidelines with rigorous selective protocol. Only data meeting established high standard criteria should be accepted | Raw, Fully processed | 5 | 6 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 7 | PDF, Written document, .DOCX, .XLSX, .TXT | In published report | No | Yes | 5 | 6 | 7 | 6 | 7 | 6 | No | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | No | After analytical stage and data creation, raw data are stored in separate file. A copy is saved for processing and analysis. The original data is then organised for publishing as supplementary information. | 5 | Yes | Repeat analysis due to laboratory and analytical issues | |||||||||||
22 | 100 | Stable isotopes | Simon Fraser University | aDNA, Osteoarchaeology, Zooarchaeology, Palaeoproteomics, Other | Geochronology (radiocarbon dating) | Yes | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 1 | 6 | 10 | Yes | Yes | 2 | 4 | 2 | 6 | Huge problems with data comparability and assessing quality of published data. Need to be sure data is of good quality and can be compared between labs. | Fully processed | 6 | 7 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 3 | PDF, Written document | In published report | No | No | No | Yes | Yes | I am not sure | Yes | Yes | Yes | Decide research area, work with collaborators, take samples, process in my lab and produce measurements in my lab. Publish results. | 6 | Yes | Access to material | |||||||||||||||||||
23 | 100 | aDNA | University of York | aDNA | Yes | 4 | 3 | 2 | 7 | 9 | 6 | 8 | 1 | 5 | 10 | Yes | Yes | 4 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 7 | While the data must be reused, I think it may be unwise to put all data into a single location. aDNA data for example is best suited for DNA repositories as they are designed for it. Moreover, these projects often include modern, historic, and ancient samples, so it would be problematic if only some of the data could be stored on an bioarchaeology server. Or if modern samples were included on the bioarchaeology server, they may not be noticed by geneticists working on living species. | Raw | 3 | 6 | 1 | 7 | 5 | 2 | 4 | FASTQ | Specialised repository | NCBI Sequence Read Archive | No | Yes | 6 | 5 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 7 | 7 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | After planning a project and acquiring funding, archaeological specimens are destructively sampled for DNA. The raw data is analyzed for a publication. Once a manuscript is published, the raw data is released on a public repository where anyone can download and analyze it. The repositories are free and ensure the data is archived for posterity. | 6 | Yes | Uploading to the servers can be rather slow, taking a few days in cases where 100s of gigabytes have been generated. . | ||||||||||||
24 | 100 | aDNA | IVPP | aDNA | Yes | 2 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 8 | 6 | 9 | 10 | Yes | Yes | Raw | 6 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 4 | 1 | 7 | BAM | In published report | Yes | Undisclosed | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | 6 | Yes | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
25 | 100 | Palaeoproteomics | University of Copenhagen | Palaeoproteomics | Yes | 6 | 7 | 1 | 3 | 8 | 10 | 9 | 4 | 5 | 2 | Specimen taxon | Yes | Yes | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 7 | Raw | 5 | 6 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 7 | RAW | Specialised repository | ProteomeXchange | No | Yes | 6 | 4 | 7 | 4 | 6 | 7 | 7 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | 5 | No | It takes tome but it's worth it. | ||||||||||||
26 | 100 | Other | Dendrochronology | UCL Institute of Archaeology | Stable isotopes | Yes | 2 | 3 | 1 | 5 | 7 | 6 | 8 | 4 | 9 | 10 | Yes | Yes | 5 | 4 | 7 | As ever, formats and methods of storage change over time | Raw | 1 | 5 | 7 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 6 | PDF, Written document, Comma separated value (CSV), Tab-separated values (TSV), .TXT | In published report | No | No | Yes | Yes | I am not sure | I am not sure | Yes | Yes | Samples collected in field, processed and data written into site report if publicly funded. Other data not published - there is some commercially sensitive material involved | 5 | Yes | Difficult areas to analyse within a prportion of samples | |||||||||||||||||||||
27 | 100 | aDNA, Osteoarchaeology, Palaeopathology, Stable isotopes | University of Copenhagen | aDNA, Osteoarchaeology, Palaeopathology, Stable isotopes | Yes | 4 | 5 | 6 | 3 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 2 | 7 | 1 | Usefulness | Yes | Yes | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 7 | A central repository sounds like a good idea but is it practical and would people use it? I haven't thought about it much but one challenge seems to be the different types of data we generate. We tried to do this as part of an ERC Synergy project once but it was very challenging for that very reason. | Raw, Partly processed | 4 | 5 | 2 | 6 | 3 | 1 | 7 | PDF, Written document, .DOCX, .XLSX, Comma separated value (CSV), Tab-separated values (TSV), FASTQ, .TXT, BAM | Specialised repository | European Nucleotide Archive (ENA) | No | Yes | 4 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 7 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | 1) sampling, 2) DNA extraction, 3) DNA library preparation, 4) DNA sequencing, 5) read processing, 6) down-stream analyses, 7) paper writing, 8) archiving and publishing. For details, see materials and methods in any ancient genome paper. | 4 | No | Uploading data to ENA at the end can be pain. | |||||||||||||
28 | 100 | aDNA, Palaeoproteomics | University of York | aDNA, Palaeopathology, Palaeoproteomics | Yes | 6 | 5 | 2 | 4 | 9 | 7 | 8 | 1 | 3 | 10 | Yes | Yes | 2 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 7 | Raw, Partly processed, Fully processed | 5 | 6 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 7 | PDF, Written document, Comma separated value (CSV), FASTQ, .TXT, RAW | Specialised repository, Institutional repository, In published report | No | Yes | 6 | 6 | 4 | 7 | 7 | 7 | Yes | Yes | I am not sure | Yes | Yes | Yes | Discussions with collaborators regarding feasibility, research design, data production, data interpretation and analysis, publication with deposition of data in repository | 5 | Yes | Size of files, suitable storage | |||||||||||||||
29 | 100 | Osteoarchaeology, Palaeopathology | University of Sheffield | Osteoarchaeology, Palaeopathology, Other | Historians | Yes | 4 | 5 | 3 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 2 | 6 | 1 | Stipulations for use of data (e.g. how to acknowledge its inclusion in the study) | Yes | Yes | 4 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | Does not publish | No | No | No | Yes | No | I am not sure | I am not sure | No | Yes | No | Identify key questions, identify what data needs to be collected to address them, decide how to collect and record the data, form a spreadsheet to input the data to in a format to ease processing, publish data in research article | 5 | No | Deciding the best format to record and input data in | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
30 | 100 | Other | Organic residue analysis | BioArCh, Archaeology, University of York | aDNA, Stable isotopes, Other | Organic residue analysis | No | Yes | Yes | 4 | 6 | 7 | 4 | 6 | I am not sure that it is essential to link all the information together when dealing with archaeological samples of different kinds (i.e. bones, pottery, etc.). I also think it is essential to be able to give precise information about the methods of preparation and analysis, because methods in biomolecular archaeology are evolving very quickly and it is not always appropriate to reuse old data studied with outdated or obsolete methods. | Partly processed, Fully processed | 3 | 4 | 1 | 6 | 5 | 2 | 7 | PDF, .DOCX, .XLSX | Supplemental information | No | No | No | Yes | No | I am not sure | No | No | No | No | I have a giant excel file that I fill in as I receive the samples, prepare them, analyse them and partly interpret the data (the part that can be filled in an excel file).The raw files are stored in separate folders, by type of analysis and named by the sample name and the type of preparation. The synthesis of the information (processed data and interpretations) is usually included in published articles or reports. | 6 | Yes | Finding information that did not seem important at the time and which is therefore often poorly documented. Make comparisons between samples I have studied in different contexts (different projects, different institutions, etc.). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
31 | 100 | Stable isotopes | University of Oxford | Stable isotopes | Yes | 2 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 10 | Yes | Yes | 6 | 6 | 5 | 7 | 5 | Consistency of data treatment (i.e. calibration) is really important if data are to be reused | Raw, Partly processed, Fully processed | 5 | 6 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 7 | .XLSX | In published report | No | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Literature survey of sites with suitable samples; identification of suitable samples from spreadsheets (if available); sampling of material with responsible people/curators; labelling of samples with unique ID; lab preparation of sample; analysis of sample; collection of raw data; calibration of data; merging data generated with metadata; publishing data and/or archiving data | 2 | Yes | Being able to trace all relevant metadata generated from previous analyses/investigations | |||||||||||||||||||
32 | 100 | Stable isotopes, Other | Environmental archaeology, North Atlantic archaeology, experimental archaeology, archaeobotany | Durham University | aDNA, Stable isotopes, Zooarchaeology, Other | Env arch, NA archaeology, archbot | Yes | 4 | 3 | 1 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 2 | 5 | 10 | Yes | Yes | 7 | 7 | 6 | 7 | 7 | Raw, Fully processed | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 1 | 2 | 7 | PDF, .DOCX, .XLSX | General repository, Institutional repository, In published report | No | Yes | 7 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 7 | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | I would design the data management plan and then implement the plan at the various stages of the research. The exact protocols depend on the nature of the project...I direct field, laboratory and meta analysis projects and all of these have different protocols for data curation. | 4 | Yes | I usually work in teams as either the team leader or as a team member. Different scientists and archaeologists have different expectations of data management and some are hostile to open data access. | ||||||||||||||
33 | 100 | Palaeopathology | University of Bradford | Palaeopathology | No | No | No | I do not create data | 6 | 6 | 4 | 5 | 6 | No | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
34 | 100 | Zooarchaeology | University | Stable isotopes | Yes | 5 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 7 | 3 | 8 | 4 | 9 | 10 | No | Yes | 5 | 7 | 7 | 5 | 7 | Good luck | Partly processed, Fully processed | 5 | 4 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 7 | PDF, .DOCX, .XLSX | General repository, Institutional repository, In published report | No | No | Yes | No | I am not sure | No | Yes | No | Data recording on spreadsheets Analysis of spreadsheets Ancillary research | 5 | Yes | consistency of recording; consistency of published data | ||||||||||||||||||||
35 | 100 | Other | archaeobotany | University of Oxford | Stable isotopes, Zooarchaeology | Yes | Yes | Yes | 7 | 7 | 5 | 7 | 7 | Ideally, it should be possible to link data to the location of physical remains, if applicable, e.g. in museum stores, to facilitate additional primary research. | Partly processed, Fully processed | 1 | 4 | 7 | 6 | 2 | 3 | 5 | PDF, .DOCX, .XLSX, Comma separated value (CSV) | Specialised repository, Institutional repository, In published report | No | No | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No | (1) Planning - or 'scoping out' - the data that are expected to be created/assembled, in type, complexity and volume; (2) creating relational database accordingly; (3) populating database; (4) querying database to perform analyses; (5) assembling human-readable outputs, e.g. CSV file, for archiving and publication. | 5 | Yes | Manual data input can be very time-consuming and labour-intensive; it can be difficult to accommodate varying data-types produced by different team members. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
36 | 100 | Stable isotopes | CNRS | Osteoarchaeology | No | Yes | Yes | 1 | 7 | 7 | 1 | 7 | Raw, Fully processed | 2 | 5 | 6 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 7 | PDF, .XLSX | In published report | No | No | No | Yes | Yes | I am not sure | I am not sure | Yes | No | 5 | No | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
37 | 100 | Zooarchaeology | Open Context (non-profit) | Osteoarchaeology, Palaeoproteomics | Yes | 1 | 2 | 4 | 7 | 5 | 6 | 8 | 3 | 9 | 10 | Yes | Yes | 4 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | Raw, Partly processed | 5 | 6 | 4 | 7 | 2 | 1 | 3 | .XLSX, JPEG | Specialised repository, In published report | Yes | CC BY | Yes | 7 | 4 | 7 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | I'm kind of an outlier because in addition to being a zooarchaeologist, I do research on this specific topic of data sharing and access. In doing this work, I've become particularly careful with my data documentation. The part that is most critical to me is cleaning my data immediately after collecting it and getting all the associated photos organized and linked to the correct bone identifiers. This process is mostly time-consuming but not difficult. Publishing is easy because I work for Open Context so I don't have to look around for where to publish or for advice about how to do so. | 5 | Yes | Getting contextual data from the excavation (usually the director). This is THE number one problem I have when trying to share my data-- waiting, often for years, for final context info from the excavation. Sometimes I never receive it and I have to publish the data with more generalized context info. | ||||||||||||
38 | 100 | Further distribution | Zooarchaeology | University of Leicester | Palaeopathology, Stable isotopes, Zooarchaeology | Yes | 5 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 2 | 6 | 10 | Yes | Yes | 7 | 7 | 6 | 7 | 5 | Fully processed | 1 | 2 | 6 | 7 | 5 | 3 | 4 | In published report | No | No | No | Yes | No | Yes | I am not sure | Yes | No | method, data collection, analysis, interpretation, publish | 4 | No | |||||||||||||||||||||
39 | 100 | Further distribution | Stable isotopes, Zooarchaeology | University of Florida | aDNA, Stable isotopes, Zooarchaeology, Palaeoproteomics | Yes | 3 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 5 | 9 | 10 | Yes | Yes | 6 | 6 | 5 | 7 | 5 | Raw, Partly processed, Fully processed | 2 | 3 | 6 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 7 | PDF, .XLSX | Specialised repository, In published report | Yes | CC BY | Yes | 6 | 4 | 7 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 7 | Yes | Yes | I am not sure | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | I identify animal remains with relevant data reported in an excel spreadsheet. I will also generate more data from secondary analyses (isotope, DNA). All spreadsheet are standardized using the Encyclopedia of Life and UBERON codes, and uploaded to Open Context or Zenodo. I also present my data in supplementary materials when publishing journal articles. | 6 | No | take the time to publish the data in open access after completion of the project | |||||||||||
40 | 100 | Further distribution | Zooarchaeology | Florida State University | Zooarchaeology | Yes | 3 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 9 | 7 | 8 | 5 | 6 | 10 | No | Yes | 7 | 7 | 5 | 7 | 7 | Does not publish | 4 | 5 | 7 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 6 | Elsewhere | Academia | No | No | Yes | I do not publish my research | I am not sure | I am not sure | Yes | No | Identify species (zooarch); identify modifications, side, sex, age; weigh and count; enter everything in excel | 6 | No | |||||||||||||||||||||
41 | 100 | Further distribution | Zooarchaeology | UC Berkeley | Osteoarchaeology, Palaeopathology, Stable isotopes, Zooarchaeology | No | Yes | Yes | 5 | 7 | 5 | 7 | 6 | Fully processed | 6 | 7 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 5 | PDF, Written document, JPEG, Comma separated value (CSV), XML | Specialised repository, Institutional repository, In published report | No | Yes | 5 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 7 | 7 | 5 | Yes | Yes | I am not sure | I am not sure | No | Yes | Yes | No | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
42 | 100 | Further distribution | Stable isotopes, Zooarchaeology | Columbia University | aDNA, Stable isotopes, Zooarchaeology | Yes | 1 | 8 | 3 | 7 | 5 | 9 | 10 | 2 | 6 | 4 | Format of data | Yes | Yes | 4 | 6 | 6 | 4 | 7 | Partly processed, Fully processed | 2 | 3 | 6 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 7 | Written document, .DOCX, .XLSX, Comma separated value (CSV), Other - please specify file type | online relational database | Institutional repository, In published report | No | No | Yes | Yes | I am not sure | No | No | Yes | No | It's complex, especially when it is data generated by multiple people across multiple modalities. For instance, if I analyze some bones for stable isotope analysis, the data from the mass spec is pretty simple to report and include. But other, connected data like the locus that the bone came from, what else was in the locus, or the dating of that locus may be harder to easily include in a way that another researcher would actually be able to use it. | 7 | Yes | Data are complex and networked and may be generated by and used by multiple people for multiple ends. | |||||||||||||||||
43 | 100 | Stable isotopes | UCL | aDNA, Osteoarchaeology, Stable isotopes, Zooarchaeology, Palaeoproteomics, Other | Palaeoclimatology | Yes | 1 | 2 | 5 | 3 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 4 | 6 | 10 | Yes | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | It is hugely important. It will allow us to look at large-scale temporal and spatial trends. Also it will allow us to combine different lines of bioarchaeological data which would be more powerful | Raw | 5 | 6 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 7 | PDF, .XLSX, Comma separated value (CSV) | Institutional repository, In published report | No | Yes | 6 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 7 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | 4 | No | |||||||||||||||
44 | 100 | Stable isotopes | University of Washington | Stable isotopes, Zooarchaeology | Yes | 6 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 1 | 4 | 10 | Yes | Yes | 6 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 7 | I have seen sharing of zooarchaeological data to be very productive and effective. I similarly expect bioarchaeology data to be productive when datasets can be easily aggregated and re-used for large-scale analyses | Raw, Fully processed | 5 | 6 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 7 | .XLSX, Comma separated value (CSV), Tab-separated values (TSV) | Specialised repository, General repository, Institutional repository | Figshare, Zenodo, OSF, Dataverse | No | Yes | 7 | 7 | 7 | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | No | At the start of a project I create a research compendium file structure which is stored on a GitHub repository for collaboration. Sometimes we use Google drive folder for collaborators who do not use Git, or for larger files. On publication we commit the compendium to a public repository such as OSF for long-term archiving. | 6 | Yes | Communication and agreeing on shared expectations with collaborators | ||||||||||||||||
45 | 100 | Further distribution | Stable isotopes, Palaeoproteomics, Other | Paleontology | IPHES | Stable isotopes, Zooarchaeology, Other | Taphonony and Paleontology | Yes | 1 | 5 | 2 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 3 | 4 | 10 | Yes | Yes | 7 | 6 | 5 | 6 | 5 | Partly processed | 4 | 3 | 7 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 6 | Written document, .DOCX, .XLSX | General repository, In published report | No | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | I am not sure | Yes | Yes | I am not sure of this question. | 4 | Yes | I am not sure of that part | |||||||||||||||||
46 | 100 | Further distribution | Zooarchaeology | Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, Paris, Fance | aDNA, Osteoarchaeology, Stable isotopes, Zooarchaeology | No | Yes | Yes | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | The reuse of the data should also imply going back to the material itself... if possible | Partly processed | 7 | 6 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 5 | PDF, .DOCX, .XLSX, Comma separated value (CSV) | In published report | No | No | No | Yes | No | I am not sure | I am not sure | Yes | No | Analysis of the bone assemblage; entering the data in an Excel file + numerous observations recorded in a notebook dedicated to the project; publication in scientific journals or chapters of the site monograph; archives of the data in my computer and my office | 7 | No | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
47 | 100 | Further distribution | Zooarchaeology | University of Basel, Switzerland | aDNA, Stable isotopes | Yes | 4 | 2 | 3 | 7 | 8 | 6 | 9 | 5 | 10 | 1 | Format of the data file | Yes | Yes | 6 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 7 | Raw, Partly processed, Fully processed | 1 | 5 | 7 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 6 | PDF, Comma separated value (CSV), .XLSX | General repository, In published report | No | No | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes | 6 | Yes | My projects often involve re-analysing data from other researchers and sampling materials stored in museums. I often find it difficult to understand how other researchers organized their data, and often it does not match what is actually in store | ||||||||||||||||||||
48 | 100 | aDNA | Trinity College Dublin | aDNA, Osteoarchaeology, Palaeopathology, Zooarchaeology | Yes | 4 | 3 | 5 | 1 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 2 | 6 | 10 | Yes | Yes | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | funding agencies and major journals should take their lead from genomics and make full data publication in a standard format obligatory | Raw, Fully processed | 1 | 7 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 6 | FASTQ, BAM | Specialised repository | EPA | No | No | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes | Archaeological sample identification, procurement with permission, aDNA extraction, screening for endogenous DNA, lower pass sequencing on Miseq machine, where merited, high density sequencing on Hiseq machine or equivalent, bioinformatic data analysis, population genomic analysis, archaeological inference, publication and data deposting. | 1 | Yes | Maintaining researcher continuity so that the process can be completed. | |||||||||||||||||||
49 | 100 | aDNA | Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique | aDNA, Osteoarchaeology, Other | archeology | Yes | 1 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 3 | 9 | 10 | Yes | Yes | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | N/A | Raw | 2 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | .XLSX, FASTQ, BAM | Specialised repository, General repository | Genbank | No | No | Yes | Yes | I am not sure | Yes | No | Yes | No | N/A | 5 | No | N/A | |||||||||||||||||
50 | 100 | aDNA | aDNA, Stable isotopes, Zooarchaeology | Yes | 3 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 7 | 9 | 8 | 1 | 5 | 10 | Yes | Yes | 6 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Raw | 6 | 5 | 7 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 4 | Written document, FASTQ | Specialised repository | ENA | No | Yes | 5 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 6 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | ||||||||||||||||||
51 | 100 | aDNA | aDNA, Osteoarchaeology, Palaeopathology, Stable isotopes, Zooarchaeology | Yes | 5 | 2 | 3 | 6 | 9 | 7 | 8 | 1 | 4 | 10 | Yes | Yes | 6 | 6 | 6 | 7 | Partly processed, Fully processed | 1 | 6 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 7 | FASTQ, .TXT, BAM | Specialised repository, General repository | ENA | No | No | Yes | Yes | I am not sure | I am not sure | Yes | Yes | It is paleogenetic data, DNA generated from ancient tissue. DNA is extracted, prepped, sequenced (shotgun NGS), analysed, published, and when published also made available on a public database (often ENA). | No | Getting usable DNA from the ancient tissue. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
52 | 100 | Further distribution | Zooarchaeology | Newcastle University | Zooarchaeology | Yes | 2 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 6 | 8 | 9 | 4 | 7 | 10 | Yes | Yes | 6 | 5 | 5 | 6 | Teach PhD students the value of sharing data, not to cling on to it, and that it is necessary to publish the underlying data of analyses presented in publications. | Raw, Partly processed, Fully processed | 4 | 5 | 6 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 7 | PDF, .DOCX, .XLSX, JPEG | Institutional repository, In published report, Supplemental information | No | No | No | Yes | Yes | I am not sure | Yes | No | Yes | No | Consider what data needs to be gathered and by what methods. Collect data, usually in Excel format, with a tab describing what data is included and how they have been collected. Analyze data with e.g. statistics and GIS software. Write up results. Publish in journal article with cleaned up data as supplementary information and/or submit data to online repository. | 4 | Yes | What is the best place to make the data available to other researchers? Supplementary information to journal articles are often not open access, but online databases often pose limitations on what data you can present and how to present it. | ||||||||||||||||||
53 | 100 | Osteoarchaeology, Palaeopathology | Museum of London | aDNA, Osteoarchaeology, Palaeopathology, Stable isotopes | Yes | 1 | 3 | 6 | 4 | 9 | 5 | 8 | 2 | 7 | 10 | Yes | Yes | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | Ensuring that there is balance between protecting intellectual property and ensuring that data are shared. The Archaeological Archive at MoL has enabled us to ensure that all of the above is managed for London. For the most part, this is possible because we are a publicly funded institution, whose remit is to ensure that archives and collections are accessible to all. | Raw, Fully processed | 4 | 5 | 6 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 7 | Written document, .XLSX | Institutional repository, In published report | No | No | Yes | Yes | I am not sure | No | Yes | Yes | My answer is based on the data I personally collect at work using the WORD database. 1) Skeletons are recorded onto WORD 2) WORD is queried to retrieve data to a specific research question (e.g. adult males from Medieval cemeteries with evidence for fractures) 2) These data are put into excel for analysis and the creation of tables/graphs 3) The data are either already on our webpage or can be requested from the Centre - it has not been possible for us to refresh or provide new data on our website since 2016 4) Copies of WORD data by site are deposited with MoL's Archaeological Archive and are also retrievable from MoLA 5) The data for a particular research project are published, an offprint is archived at the Museum | 6 | No | |||||||||||||||||||||
54 | 100 | Osteoarchaeology, Palaeopathology | Cardiff University | Osteoarchaeology, Palaeopathology | Yes | 4 | 6 | 1 | 3 | 7 | 9 | 8 | 2 | 5 | 10 | Yes | Yes | 5 | 4 | 5 | 7 | Fully processed | 1 | 2 | 7 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Written document | In published report | No | No | No | Yes | No | I am not sure | I am not sure | No | Yes | Yes | 4 | Yes | The correct way of recording data within a database | |||||||||||||||||||||
55 | 100 | Further distribution | Stable isotopes, Zooarchaeology | Ualg, Faro | Stable isotopes, Zooarchaeology | Yes | 2 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 3 | 9 | 10 | Yes | Yes | 4 | 5 | 5 | 7 | I think its very important as it provides framework for your reasearch as well as a comparison. It also be used to test extinting and new hypothses. | Fully processed | 5 | 6 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 7 | PDF, .DOCX, .XLSX | In published report | No | No | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | Yes | No | Identify site, collect/analyse samples, data generated explored, review of previous studies in the region/time frame, publish results with supplementary data, once published, file folder archiving | 4 | Yes | If I want to compare my data to other sites, difficult if data is not published or is summarised so you dont have the complete data set. | |||||||||||||||||||
56 | 100 | Palaeoproteomics | University of Copenhagen | aDNA, Osteoarchaeology, Stable isotopes, Zooarchaeology | Yes | 4 | 3 | 1 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 5 | 2 | 10 | Yes | Yes | 2 | 4 | 7 | 7 | I consider a single repository unnecessary and likely detrimental to adhering to international standards in each of the various subfields of arch sci. However, a unified interface to search such different repositories from an archaeological repository, potentially including linking data-types of different kinds generated in a single project, would be highly advantageous. | Raw, Partly processed | 6 | 7 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 5 | 3 | Comma separated value (CSV), .TXT, RAW | Specialised repository | ProteomeXchange | No | Yes | 5 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 4 | 6 | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | No | 5 | |||||||||||||||||
57 | 100 | Osteoarchaeology, Palaeopathology | University of Southampton | aDNA, Osteoarchaeology, Palaeopathology, Stable isotopes, Zooarchaeology | Yes | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 1 | 6 | 10 | Yes | Yes | 6 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 6 | Raw, Partly processed | 3 | 4 | 7 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 6 | PDF, Written document, .DOCX, .XLSX, .TXT | General repository | No | Yes | 5 | 5 | 4 | 7 | 6 | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | No | Yes | |||||||||||||||||||
58 | 100 | Zooarchaeology | University of York | aDNA, Stable isotopes, Palaeoproteomics | Yes | 1 | 2 | 5 | 4 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 3 | 6 | 10 | Yes | Yes | 3 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 7 | Visibility is crucial. At the moment zooarch data, at least, is very fragmented across publications, grey lit, and archived datasets. As a zooarch it's a tough job to find and collate all this stuff, but as a non-specialist it would be virtually impossible. If we want our data to be of wide use beyond our specialisimg, let alone beyond archaeology (e.g. for conservation science) then we MUST make it more visible and accessible. I'm actually less concerned about standardisation, since (a) unavoidable differences due to taphonomy, fieldwork traditions etc. necessitate something of a lowest-common-denominator approach in meta-analysis anyway, even if we all recorded in the same way; and (b) I worry that standardisation at the front end, as it were, might actually just mask divergent methods at the back end, increasing changes of misleading results. That said, ontologies that help to harmonise datasets without losing their original terminology are useful, and the more detail provided on methods and categories employed the better. | Partly processed | 3 | 6 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 7 | JPEG, Comma separated value (CSV) | Specialised repository, Institutional repository | OpenContext (in process of using for the first time) | Yes | CC BY | No | Yes | Yes | I am not sure | Yes | No | Yes | No | This differs widely depending on the nature of the project (and on whether I actually have control of the data or am just a collaborator), but... 1. Define aims 2. Define broad data collection/sampling strategy 3. Set up recording system for primary and/or secondary data - typically multiple tabs in Googlesheets. 4. Collect secondary data and samples for primary analysis 5. Inevitably revise recording system on contact with the data (extra fields!) 6. Select samples for primary analysis (metrics, ZooMS, isotopes, 14C, whatever) 7. Record results of primary analyses 8. Inevitably revise recording system, again (more extra fields!) 9. Decide the dataset is complete 10. Rationalise database structure (cut back on all those extra fields; probably extract some info into separate tables where not anticipated in advance) 11. Write analysis code in R, using googlesheets4 package to read in from 'live' dataset 12. Hear about some more tasty samples? GoTo step 4. 13. Run out of time/funding; where applicable pay repo upfront at the last minute before the budget is closed. 14. Finish analysis code, save output, write up. 15. Convert Googlesheets to .csv 16. Adjust code to read in .csv files 17. Deposit data. 18. Revise, submit, revise, resubmit etc. write-up 19. Publish! | 5 | Yes | 1. Incorporation of 3rd-party data that is NOT fully open. 2. Stopping my code getting horribly messy with complicated datasets, especially where I didn't set up the original data structure. | |||||||||||||||||
59 | 100 | Further distribution | Stable isotopes | University of the Highlands and Islands | Stable isotopes, Zooarchaeology | Yes | 3 | 5 | 4 | 1 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 2 | 6 | 10 | Yes | Yes | 7 | 7 | 5 | 7 | 7 | Partly processed, Fully processed | 6 | 7 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 3 | PDF, .DOCX, .XLSX | In published report, Supplemental information | No | No | Yes | Yes | I am not sure | No | No | Yes | No | |||||||||||||||||||||||
60 | 100 | Further distribution | Osteoarchaeology, Zooarchaeology | University of Sheffield, Department of Archaeology | Osteoarchaeology, Zooarchaeology | Yes | 1 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 6 | 8 | 9 | 4 | 7 | 10 | No | Yes | 6 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 7 | Making published data available should be more consistently a requirement of research projects. | Raw, Fully processed | 4 | 5 | 7 | 6 | 3 | 1 | 2 | Written document | In published report | No | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | I am not sure | No | Yes | Yes | All zooarchaeological data are recorded in an Access file, whose structure and coding are specified and explained in a recording protocol. So far, I have only included raw data in excavation reports (grey literature), but I am planning to publish my data in the near future using an open access platform. | 2 | Yes | Sticking to conventional, understandable by everyone descriptions in those fields of my database which allow free text. | |||||||||||||||||
61 | 100 | Further distribution | Zooarchaeology | Flanders Heritage agency | Stable isotopes, Zooarchaeology | Yes | 1 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 9 | 7 | 8 | 3 | 5 | 10 | No | Yes | 4 | 6 | 6 | 4 | 6 | Fully processed | 5 | 1 | 6 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 7 | PDF, .DOCX, JPEG | Institutional repository, In published report | https://oar.onroerenderfgoed.be/ | Yes | Did not understand | I do not understand these codes | No | Yes | No | No | I am not sure | Yes | No | research question received - analysis finds - interpretation - synthesis per find category - integration with other archaeological site data - publication - storage on repository - storage on researchgate etc. - data files should then be stored in institute's archive but this process is not efficient yet | 3 | Yes | a lack of time to properly archive the raw data | |||||||||||||||||
62 | 100 | Other | archaeobotany | university of Cambridge | aDNA, Osteoarchaeology, Stable isotopes | Yes | 5 | 6 | 2 | 7 | 9 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 8 | 10 | Yes | Yes | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | Fully processed | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 7 | PDF, .DOCX, .XLSX | In published report | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | I am not sure | Yes | No | The framework is initially set in the context of the research proposal outlined in the funded grant application. As results emerge, publications and their target journals are identified, after which the journal requirements frame the planning. Archaeological materials are returned, wherever possible, to their designated curator, and cross-institutional databases exploited wherever possible | 4 | Yes | While a unified protocol is always desirable, in international research, different nations have different protocols for archaeological materials | ||||||||||||||||||||
63 | 100 | Further distribution | Stable isotopes, Zooarchaeology | Centre National de Recherche Scientifique (France) and Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle | aDNA, Stable isotopes | Yes | 1 | 9 | 4 | 3 | 6 | 5 | 8 | 2 | 7 | 10 | Yes | Yes | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | This survery was very intersting. Some questions though needed to be commented and not answered by yes or no. Good luck | Raw, Partly processed, Fully processed | 4 | 5 | 3 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 7 | PDF, Written document, .DOCX, .XLSX, Other - please specify file type | generally inside the paper (Biometry for example) or details of kill off pattern | In published report | No | No | No | Yes | No | I am not sure | No | Yes | No | I use an Excel file for the registration of the faunal assemblage. This has 3, 4, 5 sheets. First is the sheet for bone by bone identification, another sheet for metric data, another for kill off, another for traces another for the precise registration of time spent on each project. Then this file is used to produce all the analyses before publishing. I don't know if I answered correctly to this question | 5 | No | ||||||||||||||||||
64 | 100 | aDNA, Other | Archaeobotany | Smithsonian NMNH | aDNA, Palaeopathology, Stable isotopes, Zooarchaeology, Palaeoproteomics | Yes | 1 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 3 | 5 | 10 | Yes | Yes | 5 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 7 | Raw, Fully processed | 6 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 7 | Comma separated value (CSV), XML, FASTQ, .TXT, Other - please specify file type | Various esoteric file types | General repository, Supplemental information | Dryad | No | No | Yes | Yes | I am not sure | Yes | Yes | No | Primarily genetic/genomic data. Real-time recording of methods in electronic notes. Spreadsheet management of samples and summary information to link data with lab accessions and samples. | 4 | No | Organizing from the beginning, rather than reconstructing. | ||||||||||||||||||
65 | 100 | Stable isotopes | University of Southampton | Osteoarchaeology, Zooarchaeology | Yes | 6 | 5 | 2 | 7 | 8 | 10 | 9 | 4 | 3 | 1 | Demonstrable data quality | Yes | Yes | 5 | 7 | 5 | 6 | 6 | Raw, Fully processed | 1 | 2 | 6 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 7 | PDF, Written document, .DOCX, .XLSX | Institutional repository, In published report | No | Yes | 4 | 4 | 7 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 7 | Yes | Yes | No | I am not sure | Yes | No | Devise research question - generate hypothesis to test - identify what data is needed to test hypotheses & answer the research question - identify appropriate analytical technique to generate required data - acquire standard materials required to demonstrate accuracy/precision of analytical technique - collect samples - analyse samples/standards (keep records in a notebook) - process data - interpret data - write report/publication that includes relevant standard data - archive report/publication & data. | 4 | Yes | There are always issues along the way, principally getting funding, then lso collecting samples, devising appropriate techniques, issues with running analyical machinery, but these are all normal for academic research | |||||||||||||
66 | 100 | Zooarchaeology | aDNA, Osteoarchaeology, Palaeopathology, Stable isotopes, Zooarchaeology, Palaeoproteomics, Other | Lipid residue analysis | Yes | 2 | 3 | 5 | 9 | 10 | 7 | 8 | 4 | 6 | 1 | This depends entirely on research question, which might be thematic, period based or site type based, but these would be first criteria, followed by those that might relate to data quality, which is problematic might lead to exclusion. | Yes | Yes | 5 | 5 | 4 | 7 | 6 | It should become standard. My responses relate to my current practice. Of course past practice was not the same, so much historical data of mine and many others is not available in this way. | Raw | 1 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 3 | 7 | Other - please specify file type | Differs according technical requirements of repository. Currentky following ADS standards. | Specialised repository, Institutional repository, General repository | Archaeology Data Service | No | Yes | 4 | 6 | 2 | 6 | 4 | 7 | Yes | I am not sure | Yes | No | Yes | No | Briefly! This is not brief thing. | 5 | Yes | ||||||||||||
67 | 100 | Further distribution | Zooarchaeology | Osteoarchaeology, Palaeopathology, Zooarchaeology | Yes | 1 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | No | Yes | 7 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 7 | Important work. | Fully processed | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 2 | 1 | 3 | PDF, Written document, .XLSX, JPEG, Comma separated value (CSV), Other - please specify file type | MS Access | In published report | No | No | No | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Bone records on Access; report; I am currently putting original data onto my website jggzooarch'org.uk. This should go to ADS at some point. | 4 | Yes | Work. Mind, I am retired now. | ||||||||||||||||||
68 | 100 | Further distribution | Stable isotopes, Zooarchaeology | aDNA, Palaeoproteomics | Yes | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 9 | 7 | 8 | 5 | 6 | 10 | Yes | Yes | 5 | 5 | 5 | 7 | 7 | Fully processed | 5 | 6 | 4 | 7 | 2 | 1 | 3 | PDF, .XLSX, Comma separated value (CSV) | Specialised repository, Institutional repository, In published report | Neotoma | No | Yes | 7 | 5 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 6 | 7 | Yes | Yes | I am not sure | Yes | No | Yes | No | 4 | Yes | following through and making sure data is intelligible | |||||||||||||
69 | 100 | Further distribution | Osteoarchaeology, Palaeopathology, Zooarchaeology, Other | mortuary archaeology | not currently associated with an institution | aDNA, Stable isotopes, Zooarchaeology | Yes | 2 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 5 | 9 | 10 | Yes | Yes | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | I have run into an attitude in isotopic analysis where it is considered 'impolite' to re-analyse site data...this seems... problematic | Raw, Fully processed | 4 | 5 | 6 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 7 | PDF, Written document, .XLSX | Specialised repository, In published report | Archaeology Data Service | No | No | Yes | No | No | No | No | Yes | Yes | typically keep notes, and maintain xls databases, archiving is on my electronic devices, aim to publish to public access online dbs. | 5 | Yes | lack of time/funding - it's a time consuming task rarely budgeted for | ||||||||||||||||
70 | 100 | Further distribution | Osteoarchaeology, Palaeopathology, Stable isotopes | MA granting University | Osteoarchaeology, Palaeopathology, Stable isotopes | No | Yes | Yes | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | This study needs to consider the ethical impacts of widely sharing and distributing data drawn from himan remains from whom we do not have direct consent. How can we be sure that a large database of bioarcaheological data would not be mis-used. If data are deposited on remains of indigenous communities how will the typical processes of ethical research design be insured? What about the misuse of 3D images of bone? Consider WHO these biological data belong to - the person from whom the data are derived or the researcher. It is not the researcher. The survey presented here seems to privilege the researcher over the people whom we study. Ethically A singilar database could be highly problematic and unethical. | Raw, Partly processed, Fully processed | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 5 | 7 | PDF, Written document, .DOCX, .XLSX, JPEG | Specialised repository, Institutional repository, In published report, Elsewhere | Publications | Yes | CC BY | Yes | 6 | 7 | 4 | 4 | 6 | 7 | 4 | Yes | No | I am not sure | Yes | Yes | Yes | Collection, collation, analysis, publication. | 6 | Yes | Ethics are of primary concern. | ||||||||||||||||||||
71 | 100 | Further distribution | Other | Archaeozoology | Freelancer | Palaeopathology, Other | Archaeozoology | Yes | 1 | 7 | 5 | 8 | 9 | 2 | 4 | 10 | 6 | 3 | Type of data (Excel, MySQL, CSV) | No | No | It requires too much time | 7 | 6 | 4 | 7 | 7 | It must be translated too. For example, most of my french collegues don't speech english ! | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
72 | 100 | Zooarchaeology | Durham University | aDNA, Stable isotopes, Zooarchaeology | No | Yes | Yes | 4 | 7 | 5 | 7 | We need to make people more aware of how important the original data are. | Raw | 4 | 5 | 7 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 6 | Written document, .DOCX | In published report | No | No | Yes | Yes | I am not sure | No | No | Yes | No | Animal bone body part frequencies and measurements, recorded in the field in writing, transferred into databases. | 2 | No | Living conditions in far-flung parts of the world. Alcohol prohibition in some Muslim countries. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
73 | 100 | Further distribution | Osteoarchaeology, Other | Forensic anthropology | A FL state academic institution in the U.S. | Osteoarchaeology, Stable isotopes, Other | Forensic anthropology | No | Yes | Yes | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | While I think a single, searchable bioarch database could be incredibly beneficial in some circumstances, I have marked "4" on the above questions to indicate my ambivalence. As a US practitioner, I would find a database of US archaeological remains to be distasteful at best, and illegal at worst. If descendant communities were not appropriately linked into the creation of such a database, it would be disrespectful of stakeholders, not to mention catastrophic in terms of archaeologist-indigenous interactions. On the other hand, in locations where descendent communities approve of bioarchaeological research and are an active part of the research process, a data base would be an amazing resource. In short, I don't know if a universal approach to this is possible or desirable, due to differing interactions in different global locations. | Fully processed | 1 | 2 | 7 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 6 | Written document, .DOCX, .XLSX, Comma separated value (CSV) | Specialised repository, Institutional repository | university of michigan's inter university consortium for political and social research icpsr | No | Yes | 4 | 6 | 2 | 6 | 6 | 6 | No | Yes | Yes | I am not sure | Yes | No | Yes | No | I typically conduct morphological analyses of skeletal remains. I identify a problem, propose hypotheses, collect data to test them on documented skeletal assemblages using relevant methods, analyze the resulting data, write up the report, submit manuscripts to peer-reviewed journals. In recent publications, I have started sharing the raw data, usually ordinal and in spreadsheet form, on institutional and open access repositories. | 3 | No | |||||||||||||||||||
74 | 100 | Further distribution | Other | Forensic Anthropology | University of West Florida | Osteoarchaeology, Palaeopathology | Yes | 2 | 4 | 3 | 6 | 5 | 8 | 9 | 1 | 7 | 10 | No | No | Economic reasons | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 7 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
75 | 100 | Further distribution | Zooarchaeology | University of Florida | aDNA, Osteoarchaeology, Stable isotopes | Yes | 1 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 9 | 7 | 8 | 3 | 5 | 10 | Yes | Yes | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | Raw, Fully processed | 3 | 5 | 7 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 4 | PDF, .XLSX, Comma separated value (CSV), Other - please specify file type | within Open Context or other integrated database | Specialised repository | Open Context, GBIF | No | Yes | 6 | 6 | 5 | 7 | 7 | Yes | No | No | Yes | No | Yes | No | research question design, data capture method design, data generation, data summation/interpretation, publication of summed/interpreted data as a report, archiving/publishing the data | 2 | Yes | extremely time consuming and very difficult to ensure data quality prior to raw data publication (ie accurate and complete metadata as well as data, correlation with accepted standards, etc.) | ||||||||||||
76 | 100 | Osteoarchaeology, Palaeopathology | UCL | Osteoarchaeology, Palaeopathology | No | Yes | Yes | 7 | 4 | 7 | 7 | 7 | I have recently been looking into using open science framework (OSF.io) to make my raw data available after being told about it by a friend who works in a different field. I think the more bioarchs that are made aware of this kind of repository, the more would use it - both to share data and reuse previous data | Partly processed | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 7 | Written document, .DOCX, .XLSX | General repository, In published report | Archaeology Data Service | No | No | No | Yes | No | I am not sure | I am not sure | No | No | Yes | I use access and / or excel to record and store data. If I am recording data that is not included in a standard osteological database I make an excel spreadsheet prior to data collection. For commercial reports all recorded data is available when these are submitted to the ADS but I must admit, it is the company who do this not me. | 7 | No | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
77 | 100 | Further distribution | Zooarchaeology | Self-employed | Zooarchaeology | Yes | 2 | 3 | 4 | 7 | 5 | 8 | 9 | 1 | 6 | 10 | No | Yes | 6 | 5 | 5 | 7 | 7 | Fully processed | 6 | 7 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 4 | PDF, Written document, Comma separated value (CSV) | In published report | No | No | No | Yes | No | No | No | No | Yes | No | Iterative | 2 | Yes | Standardization of data | ||||||||||||||||||
78 | 100 | Further distribution | Palaeopathology | Osteoarchaeology, Palaeopathology | Yes | 4 | 3 | 1 | 6 | 5 | 9 | 7 | 8 | 2 | 10 | Yes | Yes | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 7 | Partly processed | 5 | 6 | 7 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 1 | PDF, .DOCX, JPEG | In published report | No | No | No | No | Legal | No | I am not sure | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | collect information from online sources or institution. create data base of possible specimen. collect data. retain all information on an excel sheet. keep notes in diary. Create phd, other formats and submit for publication | 5 | No | |||||||||||||||||||
79 | 100 | Further distribution | Osteoarchaeology, Other | virtual Anthropology | University of Tübingen | Osteoarchaeology, Palaeopathology, Other | medical research (virtual surgical planning) | Yes | 1 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 5 | 3 | 10 | No | Yes | 6 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 7 | especially in terms of CT data it cannot be so difficult to share these virtual files and it might be very beneficial to have guidelines how long an author or a team can have exclusive access (e.g. 3-5 years and if nothing is published during this time just make it accessible) | Partly processed, Fully processed | 3 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 6 | 7 | .XLSX, Tab-separated values (TSV) | Institutional repository, In published report | stored with the university server | No | No | No | Yes | No | No | No | Yes | No | Create a sample list with Corlor code and update it constantly to see which data I got access to, received the data, worked on the data and if the data will be used in the actual publication. Create a folder on the university server where a copy of all the collected data (in my case virtual reconstructions and landmarks) are backed up. Once all analyses are done and the data set is cleaned (potential outliers or individuals that don't preserve enough of the structure we want to analyse) the partially processed data is compiled in a Excel File which contains a two d array of the data combined with the classifier information. So that everything you need to rerun all analyses is in one file | Yes | not all the data I am allowed to use can be shared with others even if the data is highly processed | ||||||||||||||||
80 | 100 | Further distribution | Osteoarchaeology, Palaeopathology | Research Institute and Museum of Anthropology (Moscow State University) | Osteoarchaeology, Palaeopathology, Zooarchaeology | Yes | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 1 | 9 | 10 | Yes | Yes | 7 | 7 | 5 | 7 | 7 | First, a standard protocol for paleopathology should be developed and used consistently. Sure, researchers can always add other indicators on the top of this basal protocol. | Partly processed | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 1 | 2 | 3 | PDF, .DOCX, .XLSX | General repository, In published report | Google Disc | No | No | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | No | Cranial and skeletal metrics, pathological markers, sex and age determinations are entered to files (doc, pdf, excel) and made publically available (or by a request) | 4 | Yes | Comparability with other datasets (paleopathology mostly) | ||||||||||||||||||
81 | 100 | Further distribution | aDNA, Osteoarchaeology | Uni Tübingen | aDNA, Osteoarchaeology, Palaeopathology | Yes | 8 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 9 | 5 | 6 | 1 | 7 | 10 | No | No | I do not create data | 7 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 7 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
82 | 100 | Further distribution | Palaeoproteomics | University of Copenhagen | aDNA, Osteoarchaeology, Palaeopathology, Stable isotopes, Zooarchaeology, Palaeoproteomics | Yes | 6 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 5 | 3 | 10 | Raw data not processed data | Yes | Yes | 4 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 7 | Some types of data - e.g. ZooMS need a single repository. However as MS1, it is not supported by ProteomeXchange | Raw | 5 | 6 | 4 | 7 | 3 | 1 | 2 | XML, RAW | Specialised repository | ProteomeXchange | No | Yes | 4 | 7 | 6 | 4 | 7 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Fairly streamlined as was are following standard proteomics protocols | 2 | Yes | Initially poor software for data conversion to open source from instrument manufacturers. | ||||||||||||
83 | 100 | Further distribution | Stable isotopes, Zooarchaeology | Cardiff University | Stable isotopes, Zooarchaeology | No | Yes | Yes | 6 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 7 | Fully processed | 4 | 5 | 7 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 6 | Written document, .XLSX, Other - please specify file type | I am still in the process of preparing data for publication, but intend to publish them in the above formats | Institutional repository, In published report, Elsewhere | Again, I have not yet published the data, but plan to publish them as above | No | Yes | 5 | 7 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 7 | Yes | Yes | I am not sure | I am not sure | No | Yes | No | 2 | Yes | Changes in institutional affiliation and funding interrupt the research and publication process. | |||||||||||||||||||||
84 | 100 | aDNA | Oxford | aDNA, Stable isotopes, Zooarchaeology, Palaeoproteomics | Yes | 3 | 4 | 2 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 1 | 9 | 10 | Yes | Yes | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 7 | Lots of insights that can be gained by having a lot of information all tied together. | Raw | 5 | 6 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 7 | PDF, .DOCX, .XLSX, JPEG, Comma separated value (CSV), FASTQ, BAM | General repository | ENA, SRA, GenBank | No | Yes | 5 | 5 | 5 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | We record everything. | 5 | Yes | It's hard to keep a clear track of everyting. | ||||||||||||||||
85 | 100 | Further distribution | Osteoarchaeology | University of Iowa | Osteoarchaeology, Palaeopathology | Yes | 1 | 2 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 3 | 10 | 4 | Level of detail made available | Yes | Yes | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | Researchers should be more willing to share their data! And that data must be accompanied by detailed information explaining data collection methods, or else it's pretty useless. | Partly processed | 3 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 5 | 1 | 7 | PDF, Written document, .XLSX, Other - please specify file type | Access Database | Specialised repository, In published report, Elsewhere | Journal article | Iowa Office of the State Archaeologist archive | No | Yes | 6 | 6 | 6 | 4 | 6 | 7 | No | No | Ethical | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | My office uses a standard process. All osteological data is entered into an Access database. Tables containing much (but not all) of this data are published in our reports. All paper and digital associated files (including photographs) are packaged together and permanently archived at the end of a project. Reports are publicly available, but the Access database and archived project files are only available to qualified researchers who make requests, per our agreement with Native American tribes. | 6 | No | It's a pain in the ass to label all the photographs in metadata AND in the spreadsheet that our archivist requires. But it's not THAT terrible. | |||||||
86 | 100 | Further distribution | Osteoarchaeology, Palaeopathology, Zooarchaeology | Own company | aDNA, Stable isotopes | No | No | Yes | 6 | 5 | 4 | 6 | 7 | bioarchaeological data are very diverse, e.g. many questions used here do not really fit everyday osteoarchaeological work | Raw, Partly processed, Fully processed | 1 | 4 | 7 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 6 | PDF, Written document, .DOCX, .XLSX, JPEG | In published report | Yes | Undisclosed | na | No | No | Yes | Yes | I am not sure | I am not sure | No | Yes | Yes | Osteoarchaeology does not typically use experiments | 5 | Yes | Traditional archaeological journal sometimes have no room for lengthy osteological data (tables) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
87 | 100 | Further distribution | Palaeopathology | Durham University | Osteoarchaeology, Palaeopathology, Other | Geometric Morphometrics | No | No | No | Economic reasons | 5 | 6 | 7 | 6 | 7 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
88 | 100 | Further distribution | Osteoarchaeology | private | Osteoarchaeology, Palaeopathology, Stable isotopes, Zooarchaeology | No | No | No | 2 | 2 | 2 | you have not addressed the issue of ownership of data. Much work is comissioned on behalf of or done with the permission of other organisations, who may not consent to data derived from their source material being made publicly available | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
89 | 100 | Further distribution | Osteoarchaeology | Commercial archaeology unit | Osteoarchaeology, Palaeopathology, Zooarchaeology | No | No | Yes | 6 | 7 | 2 | 6 | 6 | Partly processed, Fully processed | 7 | 2 | 6 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 1 | PDF, JPEG | Specialised repository, In published report | Archaeology Data Service | Yes | CC BY-SA | No | Yes | No | I am not sure | I am not sure | No | No | Yes | Analysing of a commercial skeletal assemblage working to budget and preparing a specialist report normally part of a large site report. This is then submitted to clients, county archaeologists, ADS etc | 4 | No | Budgetary | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
90 | 100 | Further distribution | Osteoarchaeology | A commercial archaeology company | aDNA, Osteoarchaeology, Palaeopathology, Stable isotopes | Yes | 1 | 9 | 2 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 4 | 3 | 10 | No | Yes | 6 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | Raw, Fully processed | 1 | 2 | 7 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 6 | PDF, Comma separated value (CSV) | Specialised repository, Institutional repository, In published report | Archaeology Data Service | No | No | Yes | No | No | I am not sure | Yes | No | Follow ADS guidelines and other museum institutions. | 5 | Yes | Final deposition format not always consistent with what you would like to use. | |||||||||||||||||||
91 | 100 | Further distribution | Osteoarchaeology | Universite de Strasbourg | aDNA, Osteoarchaeology, Palaeopathology, Stable isotopes, Zooarchaeology | Yes | 5 | 6 | 1 | 3 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 4 | 2 | 10 | Yes | Yes | 6 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 7 | You can't have one single repository for all data worldwide. I just find that it will be impossible to get different governmental authorities (eg French, German, Colombia, British, etc.) to agree | Raw, Partly processed, Fully processed | 6 | 7 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 4 | PDF, Written document, .DOCX, .XLSX, JPEG, Comma separated value (CSV), Tab-separated values (TSV), XML, .TXT | Specialised repository, In published report | No | No | Yes | Yes | I am not sure | No | No | Yes | Yes | Data is created during data collection dependent on research project aims | 4 | Finding a repository | |||||||||||||||||||
92 | 100 | Further distribution | Osteoarchaeology | University of Sydney, NSW Australia | Osteoarchaeology, Zooarchaeology | Yes | 4 | 5 | 2 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 3 | 1 | 10 | No | No | It is unnecessary to | 5 | 3 | 6 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
93 | 100 | Further distribution | Osteoarchaeology, Palaeopathology | Osteoarchaeology, Palaeopathology | Yes | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 5 | 10 | Yes | Yes | 7 | 4 | 4 | 7 | 7 | Raw, Partly processed, Fully processed | 1 | 2 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 7 | Comma separated value (CSV), XML | Specialised repository | Archaeology Data Service | Yes | Yes | 7 | 6 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 7 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | 6 | No | ||||||||||||||
94 | 100 | Further distribution | Osteoarchaeology, Palaeopathology | University of Reading | Osteoarchaeology, Palaeopathology, Stable isotopes | Yes | 2 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 6 | 7 | 4 | Estimated age of the skeleton | Yes | No | I am not sure how to | 5 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 6 | It would be interesting to have a more uniform criterion when reporting data. Although there are some standards followed, especially on newer reports, it would be interesting to update older reports to be able to integrate their data to large scale analyses. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
95 | 100 | Further distribution | Osteoarchaeology, Palaeopathology | Ludwig Maximilian University | Osteoarchaeology, Palaeopathology | No | Yes | Yes | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | There should be a law that all data needs to be made publicly available. | Fully processed | 6 | 7 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 2 | PDF, .DOCX, JPEG | In published report | No | No | No | Yes | No | I am not sure | I am not sure | Yes | Yes | Prior to starting a research project, I make a research plan and then work myself through the points. In the course of the project, I add notes and comments to the respective sections so that I can follow up on what has been done and how. | 6 | No | Institutional restrictions. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
96 | 100 | Further distribution | Osteoarchaeology, Palaeopathology | Institute for Anthropological Research, Zagreb, Croatia | aDNA, Osteoarchaeology, Palaeopathology, Stable isotopes | No | Yes | Yes | 6 | 5 | 4 | 6 | 6 | Raw, Fully processed | 1 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | PDF, .XLSX | In published report | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes | I am not sure | I am not sure | Yes | Yes | No | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
97 | 100 | Further distribution | Osteoarchaeology, Stable isotopes | Independent Academic | Osteoarchaeology | Yes | 2 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 1 | 5 | 10 | Yes | Yes | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | As the COVID-19 pandemic has shown access to data can become very difficult at times. We need to look at the ways the discipline can increase access to data digitally through more centralised searchable databases. However, this would need to be done in a thoughtful manner due issues such as the ethics of ownership of data, institutions rights, and most importantly the fact that this would include data on human remains. | Raw, Partly processed | 6 | 5 | 7 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 4 | Comma separated value (CSV) | In published report | No | No | No | Yes | Yes | I am not sure | I am not sure | No | Yes | No | Yes | Maintaining organisation of data, particularly as subsequent layers of analysis are undertaken can become difficult depending on how many levels/types of analysis are required. | |||||||||||||||||||
98 | 100 | Further distribution | Osteoarchaeology | NA, work for multiple companies | Osteoarchaeology | No | No | No | 5 | 7 | 7 | 5 | 5 | What exactly was implied by reuse? I would 100% of the time have access to the bones than to someone else's data; reusing their osteological data is supplemental, unless it consists of well documented filed notes (but only the non-osteological aspects). Also, lack of publishing is caused by lack of time to perform any type of study due to full time work in commercial archaeology and, relatively common, the signature of NDAs for certain sites. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
99 | 100 | Further distribution | Osteoarchaeology | None | Osteoarchaeology | No | No | Yes | Fully processed | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 7 | In published report | No | No | No | No | Legal | No | No | I am not sure | No | No | Yes | 3 | No | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
100 | 100 | Further distribution | Osteoarchaeology, Stable isotopes, Other | Bioarchaeology and Non Adult Osteology | U of Sheffield | Palaeopathology, Other | Non Adult Osteology | Yes | 4 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 6 | 3 | 10 | No | Yes | 5 | 6 | 4 | 5 | 5 | Partly processed, Fully processed | 5 | 3 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 7 | PDF, Written document, JPEG | In published report | No | Yes | 5 | 4 | 6 | 4 | 6 | 7 | 6 | Yes | No | I am not sure | Yes | Yes | Yes | I have been lucky to have a based osteological collection to start with so I already have a decent estimate of my sample size and if I can or cannot perform nonadult based studies. I find that scribbling notes on paper is great for outside work, but can become confusing at later dates when trying to type it up; so when i am in a lab i input the data directly. I extensively use and appreciate the use of Academia.edu | 3 | Yes | Funding, Space Availability, Equipment Availability | |||||||||||