Find research datasets worth reusing

opencc-by-4.0Dec 2021View details →

A comparison of citation sources for reference and citations based search in systematic literature reviews

Context: In software engineering, snowball sampling has been used as a supplementary and primary search strategy. The current guidelines recommend the use of Google Scholar (GS) for snowball sampling. However, the use of GS presents several challenges when using it as a source for citations and references. Objective: To compare the effectiveness and usefulness of two leading citation databases (GS and Scopus) for use in snowball sampling search.Method: We relied on a published study that has used snowball sampling as a search strategy and GS as the citation source. We used its primary studies to compute precision and recall for Scopus. Results: In this particular case, Scopus was highly effective with 95% recall and had better precision of 5.1%compared to GS’s 2.8%. On average, one would read 15 extra papers in GS than Scopus to identify an additional relevant paper. Moreover, Scopus supports batch downloading of both citations to a paper and the papers’ references, has better quality metadata, and does better source filtering. Conclusion: This study suggests that Scopus seems to be more effective and useful for snowball sampling than GS for systematic secondary studies attempting to identify peer-reviewed literature.

opencc-by-4.0Feb 2022View details →

Code Smells in Elixir: Early Results from a Grey Literature Review [DATASET]

Dataset used in research submitted to ICPC ERA 2022

opencc-by-4.0Mar 2022View details →

SCAS-Fuzzy: A Strategy to Semi-Automate the Initial Selection Task in Systematic Literature Reviews

Appendix of the paper "SCAS-Fuzzy: A Strategy to Semi-Automate the Initial Selection Task in Systematic Literature Reviews".

opencc-by-4.0Apr 2022View details →

Systematic literature review of reference architectures evaluation

Systematic literature review of reference architectures evaluation

FIGURE 11 in Literature review of the systematics, biology and role in malaria transmission of species in the Afrotropical Anopheles subgenus Anopheles (Diptera: Culicidae)

FIGURE 11. Anopheles concolor: a, wing; b, palpomere; c, hindleg (from Gillies & de Meillon 1968).

FIGURE 3 in Literature review of the systematics, biology and role in malaria transmission of species in the Afrotropical Anopheles subgenus Anopheles (Diptera: Culicidae)

FIGURE 3. Anopheles coustani: a, wing; b, palpomere; c, hindleg (from Gillies & de Meillon 1968).

FIGURE 6 in Literature review of the systematics, biology and role in malaria transmission of species in the Afrotropical Anopheles subgenus Anopheles (Diptera: Culicidae)

FIGURE 6. Anopheles obscurus: a, wing; b, palpomere; c, hindleg showing variation (from Gillies & de Meillon 1968; Gillies & Coetzee 1987).

FIGURE 4 in Literature review of the systematics, biology and role in malaria transmission of species in the Afrotropical Anopheles subgenus Anopheles (Diptera: Culicidae)

FIGURE 4. Anopheles fuscicolor: a, wing; b, palpomere; c, hindleg (a and c from de Meillon 1947; b from Grjebine 1966).

FIGURE 1 in Literature review of the systematics, biology and role in malaria transmission of species in the Afrotropical Anopheles subgenus Anopheles (Diptera: Culicidae)

FIGURE 1. Wing of Anopheles female showing vein nomenclature (after Sallum et al. 2020). A, anal, CuA, anterior cubitus; M, media; R, radius.

opencc-zeroMay 2022View details →

dryad32/100

Review and synthesis of the global literature on domestic cat impacts on wildlife

A vast global literature documents that free-roaming domestic cats (Felis catus) have substantial negative effects on wildlife, including through predation, fear, disease, and competition-related impacts that have contributed to numerous wildlife extinctions and population declines worldwide. However, no study has synthesized this literature on cat impacts on wildlife to evaluate its overarching biases and major gaps. To direct future research and conservation related to cat impacts on wildlife, we conducted a global literature review that entailed evaluation and synthesis of patterns and gaps in the literature related to the geographic context, methods, and types of impacts studied. Our systematic literature search compiled 2,245 publications. We extracted information from 332 of these meeting inclusion criteria designed to ensure the relevance of studies analyzed. This synthesis of research on cat impacts on wildlife highlights a focus on oceanic islands, Australia, Europe, and North America, and on rural areas, predation, impacts of unowned cats, and impacts at population and species levels. Key research advances needed to better understand and manage cat impacts include more studies in underrepresented, highly biodiverse regions (Africa, Asia, South America), on cat impacts other than predation, and on methods designed to reduce impacts on wildlife. The identified areas of needed research into cat impacts on wildlife will be critical to further clarifying the role of cats in global wildlife declines and to implementing science-driven policy and management that benefit conservation efforts.

opencc-by-4.0May 2022View details →

Literature review on innovative, sustainable and competitive agrifood value chains

This Literature review Data-set has been produced in the frame of CO-FRESH -  D1.1. State of the art summarized in an overview of the key success factors (and their theoretical explanations) of innovative, sustainable and competitive agrifood value chains. Grand societal challenges, such as climate change, environmental degradation, food security, immigration, and digital transformation, urge agrifood value chains to embrace sustainability objectives and measures. This objective requires value chains actors from farm to fork to interact for environmental, social and economic improvement of the system. In this context, innovation, that has long been considered as a factor of growth and competitiveness, becomes an increasingly important factor to create value while addressing sustainability challenges. Therefore, the emergence of concepts such as sustainability-oriented innovation and sustainable innovation are undeniable results of this trend. However, our scholarly understanding of these emerging concepts can be improved. In addition, it has been acknowledged that sustainability outcomes cannot be gained individually and that collaboration among value chain partners is needed. Thus, collaboration is seen as an effective way to turn ambition and commitment into action in the journey toward sustainability. The CO-FRESH project aims to enhance collaboration for sustainability-oriented innovation, by proposing tools for re-designing fruit and vegetables (F&V) agrifood value chains across Europe. To reach these objectives, Work Package 1 takes the lead in Identification, Analysis and Design of Innovative and Sustainable Agrifood Value Chains. The current report is the outcome of Task 1.1, a review of the state of the art. Deliverable 1.1. presents the state of the art of the academic and grey literature on sustainability-oriented innovation (SOI) in agrifood chains, more specifically presenting key success factors and their theoretical explanations for innovative, sustainable and competitive agrifood value chains. The review, first, gives a clear definition of ”sustainable and innovative agrifood chains’’ in the CO-FRESH project, drawing on the literature about SOI. Second, the review explores different modes of collaboration that contribute to sustainability and innovation in agrifood chains. Finally, the review elaborates on the role of public policies in promoting SOIs in agrifood chains. The outcome of this review will be used in offering a list of search criteria to create an inventory of innovative and sustainable F&V value chains in Europe. In addition, the insights of this deliverable will be used for characterizing and assessing the F&V value chains and their success factors (Task 1.2). On the basis of this review and the assessment in Task 1.2, recommendations will be given for data collection on and redesigning of the CO-FRESH pilot cases. Chapter 2 presents the main methodology applied in the literature review. A framework for guiding the review was designed around the key concepts of sustainability, innovation, value-chain and collaboration. The main questions were: How is SOI defined in the literature and how does it apply to the agrifood sector? What are the specificities of SOI in fruit and vegetable value-chains? How does inter-organizational collaboration relate to SOI in agrifood chains? How do public policies relate to SOI in agrifood chains? The agrifood sector was the primary focus, but perspectives from other sectors were brought in to complement our understanding. No limitations were put on the type of agricultural products considered. The disciplines of Business, Management and Economics were studied, but also Agriculture, Regional and Urban Planning, Environmental Studies. This process result in more than 350 references reviewed. Chapter 3 addresses how sustainability-oriented innovation (SOI) is defined in the economics, business and strategic management literature. The chapter starts by reminding that sustainability in itself is subject to debate. In the agrifood sector, sustainability has long been addressed through the environmental lens, first at the farm level and then at the level of the value chain with the development of LCA methods. The concept has then evolved to encompass a more holistic view of sustainability taking into account social dimensions of food systems (like healthiness and relational proximity) and economic dimensions in value chains (like a fair distribution of value, and competition within and across value chains). Even when consensus exists on the sustainable development goals, the indicators developed by international organizations often differ from the ones that are of interest for corporates or developed by academics. From our review of the literature, we conclude that SOI can be defined according to the direction, distribution, diversity, and degree of openness. <ul> <li>The direction of SOI refers to the three pillars of sustainability.</li> </ul> While eco-innovation or social innovation put the emphasis on one dimension, SOI takes into account more than one dimension. As a result, SOI involves a higher level of complexity and more uncertainty on the outcomes of the innovation compared to conventional innovation. <ul> <li>The distribution of SOI refers to the repartition of the benefits.</li> </ul> Many authors argue that SOI should enable a fair benefit-sharing among the value chain actors. In addition to that, the outcomes of SOI do benefit not only the value chain actors but also external actors. For instance, a reduction of the use of chemical inputs on the farm results in cost reduction, thus an economic benefit for the farmer, while it also results in a reduction of greenhouse gas emission, thus an environmental benefit for society as a whole. <ul> <li>The diversity of SOI refers to the type of innovation. Based on economics of innovation and innovation management literature, we rely on the following types of innovation in the CO-FRESH project: <ul> <li>Technical innovation: The implementation of new or significantly improved goods and services, or new or improved methods of producing goods and services.</li> <li>Organizational innovation: The implementation of a new routines, management structures and methods of coordination within or between organizations.</li> <li>Managerial innovation: A form of organizational innovation focused on the specific roles and functions of the manager, including the interpersonal roles, the informational roles and the decision-making roles.</li> <li>Institutional innovation: A legitimate change in the cognitive, normative, or regulative rules of a social system</li> </ul> </li> </ul>   <ul> <li>The degree of openness of SOI refers to the participation of different actors in the innovation process.</li> </ul> SOI is a process that can rely on various degree of value-chain collaboration. In other words, a process that brings together value chain actors (and sometimes also external actors) toward a common goal and a common understanding of developing and implementing an innovation. These value chain actors share decision rights on a part of their individual activities. While SOI begins at the firm level in response to external stimuli such as legislation, it evolves in a pro-active change at the wider system level. In sum, we provide the following general definition of sustainability-oriented innovation: “A collaborative process of change directed at improving one or more of the three pillars of sustainability (i.e., environmental, economical and social), relying on a diversity of bundled innovations (notably technological, organizational and institutional), and whose benefits are fairly distributed along the value chain actors”. Acknowledging that collaboration is of paramount importance for SOI, Chapter 4 analyses how inter-organizational collaboration relates to SOI. In this report, the focus is on inter-organizational relationship and not on intra-organizational collaboration. The modes of inter-organizational collaboration in the agrifood sector include collaborations among value chain actors (such as joint ventures, cooperatives, licensing, contracting) and collaborations between value chain actors and actors in the business ecosystem, the technological innovation system or the socio-ecological system (including public-private partnerships and multistakeholder partnerships). In the agrifood sector, collaboration traditionally concerns knowledge exchange; production and distribution activities; new product development; and commercialization of products. As collaboration entails risk and loss of autonomy, organizations engage in collaborations only if there are clear benefits. Current motives for horizontal and vertical collaboration include strengthening of bargaining power; gaining economies of scale; accessing tangible and intangible resources; reducing transaction costs; sharing of risks; improving lobbying power and legitimization; and joint learning and innovation. Success factors of collaboration include trust, reciprocity, communication, partner compatibility, and the complementarity of resources. The remainder of chapter 4 explores how particular collaboration modes relate to SOI in agrifood chains and derives with six main themes. One, cooperatives could enable collective investments necessary for SOI. Moreover, cooperatives could facilitate a reduction of the individual risk of farmers in SOI and provide the technical assistance and financial room for experimenting with sustainable agricultural practices. Two, the dual role of contracts appears to be crucial for SOI in value chains. On the one hand, contracts facilitate adoption of new technologies and farming practices, that could lead to improved environmental sustainability. On the other hand, contractual arrangements are an organizational innovation that enable value creation and value sharing, that could lead to better socio-economical sustainability. Contracts in general facilitate incentive alignment, risk mitigation and benefit sharing; co-investment, joint-funding and protection of specific investment; socio-technical interactions and inter-organizational learning; and provision of credit, inputs and technical services. Three, involving consumers and citizens is a strong driver of innovation and a move toward more responsible patterns of consumption. However, the match between citizen preference and consumer purchase behaviour is yet to be better understood. Consumer-driven initiatives such as community-supported agriculture, buying groups, and participatory guarantee systems are growing and have been described in the literature on short food supply chains. Four, the advantages of multistakeholder partnerships appear to be evident for promoting SOI along the value chain.  Actors and stakeholders in the periphery of a firm's stakeholder network (e.g., universities, civil society and public authorities) may be even more relevant for SOI than primary stakeholders. Five, the relevance of open innovation and the collaboration among value chain actors for innovation is undeniable. Although open SOI capabilities comply with the traditional open innovation capability framework, the capabilities should be accustomed to the sustainability context and adapted to the diversity of sustainability as perceived by actors. Six, digitalization has substantial influence on inter-organizational collaboration for SOI in agrifood. Digitalization influences collaboration modes in several ways: facilitation of information and knowledge sharing by overcoming material constraints; improvement of transparency and reliability; and intensification of the volume and rapidity of data collection and data analysis. However, digitalization has downsides such as increasing the power of dominant actors and the risk of exclusion of small-scale and computer-illiterate producers. Chapter 5 analyses how public policies relate to SOI in agrifood chains. Among the most debated public policies addressed in the literature, the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is the most explored, especially with reference to the instruments provided within the framework of the two pillars of the CAP. With regard to policy instruments aimed at supporting SOI, most of the literature focused on financial instruments. However, some authors explored normative instruments, mainly with reference to environmental and phytosanitary regulations. There is little debate on informative policy instruments, studied mostly with reference to advisory services and educational campaigns. Another theme that found relatively modest debate was the impact of innovation on the social dimension of sustainability. Most authors focused on the environmental and economic impact of sustainability. The role of public policies to promote social sustainability along the value chain remains a key area of improvement, especially with regard to rural employment and livelihood. The review highlights that, in general, the investigation approach to explore the role of public policies in promoting SOI along agrifood value chains is often rather narrow and case study-oriented. Finally, the report derives at two main conclusions. First, we draw lessons learnt on how collaboration and public policies relate to SOI in agrifood chains, and on the factors that strengthen SOI. Independently of the types of collaboration (within the value chain or between the value chain and the broader innovation system), this review reveals common factors that lead to successful collaboration for SOI. A prerequisite is for actors to share a common vision on the sustainability goals. In addition, the importance of relational factors such social capital, trust and communication was highlighted in all literature. The complementarity of resources between the actors is also a major factor for successful collaboration. Finally, the importance of combining different collaborations modes was revealed in our review, as well as the importance of enabling institutions and public policies. We also found that inclusive and evolutionary governance structures at different levels of the value chain promote collaboration for SOI. For instance, bilateral collaboration in a value chain for access to specific resources may be complemented with open innovation strategies that enable generating knowledge. Finally, this review principally focused on meso-level factors that can influences collaboration modes for SOI. Further explorations should focus on micro-determinants of innovation and the evolution of success factors of collaboration along the process of SOI. Second, our literature review has allowed us to present 16 recommendations for interventions for improvements in the pilot cases of the CO-FRESH project. These recommendations are clustered in three categories: relational, structural and operational, and strategic. Relational factors are about the (social) interactions between actors involved in the value chain and in the innovation process. Structural and operational factors are about structuring the agrifood chain, structuring the innovation process, and the operations in the value chain. Strategic factors include the goals that the actors in the value chain pursue, individually and jointly, and the translation of these goals into management decisions.

opencc-by-4.0Dec 2021View details →

Systematic literature review on bioblitzes - Methodology and results

This dataset contains supplementary material to a review paper on bioblitzes (submitted). This dataset contains following files:  1a. Systematic literature review methods.pdf 1b. Reference list reviewed papers.pdf 1c. Reference list reviewed papers_BibTeX.txt 1d. Reference list reviewed papers_RIS.txt 1e. Reference list reviewed papers.csv 1f. Data retrieved from the reviewed papers.csv 1g. Ranked importance of each aim per bioblitz record.csv   1h. Fig. 1_Map showing the distribution of published bioblitzes considered in the literature review.jpg These files include lists of reviewed papers in different formats (pdf/csv/RIS/BibTeX), the description of the methodology used to search and select this collection of papers, one csv-file containing the extracted data on bioblitzes from the literature and one showing the ranks in respect with the aim of the bioblitz per paper, and one figure showing the geographical distribution of the published records.

AESI Background Rates Literature Review & Visualization for Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS)

AESI Background Rates Literature Review & Visualization for GBS

AESI Background Rates Literature Review & Visualitzation for ASM

AESI Background Rates Literature Review & Visualitzation for ASM

AESI Background Rates Literature Review & Visualitzation for Facial Palsy

AESI Background Rates Literature Review & Visualitzation for Facial Palsy

opencc-by-4.0Jun 2022View details →

AESI Background Rates Literature Review & Visualitzation for Anaphylaxis

AESI Background Rates Literature Review & Visualitzation for Anaphylaxis

AESI Background Rates Literature Review & Visualitzation for ADEM

AESI Background Rates Literature Review & Visualitzation for ADEM

opencc-by-4.0Mar 2022View details →

AESI Background Rates Literature Review & Visualitzation for Myelitis

SPEAC

opencc-by-4.0Aug 2022View details →

Pandemic impacts on Software Engineering: A Multivocal Literature Review

Pandemic impacts on Software Engineering: A Multivocal Literature Review - data set