Quoting from the actual paper: "As the relationships between scientific practice and social, archaeological and historical interpretations continue to be debat

Quoting from the actual paper: "As the relationships between scientific practice and social, archaeological and historical interpretations continue to be debated in the discipline at large (McGovern 1995; Jones 2001; Knapp 2002), it should perhaps not come as a surprise that we insist that it is critical that all types or ‘genres’ of evidence be taken into account in relation to the tophets as both a historical phenomenon and a series of archaeological contexts. We all have to work within the limits of our own expertise, whether as scientists, archaeologists, philologists or epigraphers, but we should also strive in the humanities as much as in the sciences to apply the highest standards of academic rigour, without preconceptions, in order to formulate falsifiable hypotheses and interpretations that take into account the full range of available sources—however strange we may find the results..." I don't know, that sounds like a pretty good "understanding of the scientific process". (Admittedly, I'm just an astrophysicist, so maybe I don't understand "the scientific process".)