Downloads provided by UsageCounts
This data is the results of two similar polls. The first set of results, "Reproducible Archaeology: Responses from Durham University Archaeologists" holds data from a live poll participated in during the workshop on 'Reproducible research in Archaeology' at Durham University on 15th October 2021. (See https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5615534 for a recording of the workshop.) The second poll was advertised on Twitter in November 2021, aiming to gather answers to the same questions but in a modified format for a survey rather than a live poll. The poll and reports were created using Slido: the PDF is an automatically generated report; the Excel Spreadsheet gives all poll answers. The use of Slido was funded by the Software Sustainability Institute as part of their Fellowship scheme.
archaeology, reproducibility
Twitter Data
archaeology, reproducibility
Twitter Data
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 0 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
| views | 3 | |
| downloads | 3 |

Views provided by UsageCounts
Downloads provided by UsageCounts