Report on the excavation of a Punic tomb

On 19th November 2001, while two of us (DB, NJC) were preparing a drawn record of the Punic tomb that is situated on Bajda Ridge, Xemxija, a small ceramic bowl (100211) was uncovered from below a few centimetres of soil that covered the inner part of the threshold to the rock-cut chamber (Fig. 1). An official from the Museums Department was informed of the discovery on the same day and a site inspection was carried out. It was realised that more artefacts could lie undisturbed within the chamber and a decision was taken to excavate the deposit. Authorisation for the Department of Classics and Archaeology, University of Malta, to undertake the excavation was received from the Director, Museums Department, and the excavation was completed on the 22nd November. The tomb is located on the ridge, near a path that diverges eastwards from the track that links Pwales valley to the Mistra valley. It is cut in the Upper Coralline limestone that outcrops in the area on a North-South axis and consists of a sub-rectangular chamber that is reached through a low entrance at the bottom of a rectangular shaft (Fig. 1). The tomb appears in an inventory for the first time in 1996 when it was listed in the survey of archaeological sites prepared by Malta University Services for the Planning Authority by Anthony Bonanno in connection with the preparation of the North-West local plan for Malta. The tomb had been examined and photographed by one of us (NCV) in 1992. At the time, it was littered with debris and it was only with difficulty that a view of the chamber could be achieved through the entrance that was partly concealed by an irregular blocking stone. Late in 2000, members of the St Paul's Bay Heritage Group lifted the debris from the trench and cleared the area around the site.peer-reviewe

Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science

Reproducibility is a defining feature of science, but the extent to which it characterizes current research is unknown. We conducted replications of 100 experimental and correlational studies published in three psychology journals using high-powered designs and original materials when available. Replication effects were half the magnitude of original effects, representing a substantial decline. Ninety-seven percent of original studies had statistically significant results. Thirty-six percent of replications had statistically significant results; 47% of original effect sizes were in the 95% confidence interval of the replication effect size; 39% of effects were subjectively rated to have replicated the original result; and if no bias in original results is assumed, combining original and replication results left 68% with statistically significant effects. Correlational tests suggest that replication success was better predicted by the strength of original evidence than by characteristics of the original and replication teams

Reproducibility Project: Psychology

Reproducibility is a defining feature of science, but the extent to which it characterizes current research is unknown. We conducted replications of 100 experimental and correlational studies published in three psychology journals using high-powered designs and original materials when available

Data from: Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science

This record contains the underlying research data for the publication "Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science" and the full-text is available from: https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/lkcsb_research/5257Reproducibility is a defining feature of science, but the extent to which it characterizes current research is unknown. We conducted replications of 100 experimental and correlational studies published in three psychology journals using high-powered designs and original materials when available. Replication effects were half the magnitude of original effects, representing a substantial decline. Ninety-seven percent of original studies had statistically significant results. Thirty-six percent of replications had statistically significant results; 47% of original effect sizes were in the 95% confidence interval of the replication effect size; 39% of effects were subjectively rated to have replicated the original result; and if no bias in original results is assumed, combining original and replication results left 68% with statistically significant effects. Correlational tests suggest that replication success was better predicted by the strength of original evidence than by characteristics of the original and replication teams