Find research datasets worth reusing
Search datasets from major research repositories and use ShareScore to quickly assess how well each record supports discovery, access, and reuse.
5,061
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.7.1
Dataset results
5,061 results for “access”
How to find open access materia?
<p>A 4-minute video on how to find open access material (publications and datasets). Emphasis on Finland and University of Helsinki.</p>
RNA Ensembles From Solvent Accessibility Data: Application to the SAM-I Riboswitch Aptamer Domain
<p>SASA-derived ensembles of the -SAM and +SAM states of the SAM-responsive riboswitch.</p>
Accessing the hidden parts of the Parler iOS app using dynamic runtime instrumentation
<p>Example of how to use the objection mobile exploration tool and the Frida dynamic instrumentation framework to access otherwise hidden parts of the Parler social network iOS app.</p>
Multidimensional framework for furthering open access
<p>The spreadsheet provides a multidimensional framework for furthering open access to research output. Combining three dimensions (i.e. aspects of open access, actors involved and the levels at which actions can be taken) results in a multidimensional framework that can inform future developments. Vertically, the different aspects of open access are projected. Horizontally, the five “levels of engagement” are presented for each of the different actors relevant for open access in the Dutch context. The framework can be used in various ways. For instance one could fill it with current actions/policies. But one could also use it to prioritize or plan future actions. This file set contains both the template and the versions filled with current actions relevant for researchers in the Nederlands in PDF format, in spreadsheet format and as presentation slides.</p>
Solar Energetic Proton Access to the Inner Magnetosphere during the 7-8 September 2017 event
<p>Dataset used in the manuscript.</p> <p> </p> <p>2fluxLFM.txt: The first two columns are time from 09/07 00UT in hours and L along RBSP-B trajectory where the cutoff energy in vertical direction calculated using LFM model is 21 MeV. The third and fourth columns are time from 09/07 00UT in hours and L along RBSP-A trajectory where the cutoff energy in vertical direction calculated using LFM model is 21 MeV. Columns 5 and 6 are time from 09/07 00UT in hours and L where the 21 MeV proton flux measured by RBSP-B is 50% of the interplanetary flux. Columns 7 and 8 are time from 09/07 00UT in hours and L where the 21 MeV proton flux measured by RBSP-A is 50% of the interplanetary flux. </p> <p>2fluxTS.txt: Columns 1 and 2 are time from 09/07 00UT in hours and L where the 21 MeV proton flux measured by RBSP-B is 50% of the interplanetary flux. Columns 3 and 4 are time from 09/07 00UT in hours and L where the 21 MeV proton flux measured by RBSP-A is 50% of the interplanetary flux. Columns 5 and 6 are time from 09/07 00UT in hours and L along RBSP-A trajectory where the cutoff energy in vertical direction calculated using LFM model is 21 MeV. Columns 7 and 8 are time from 09/07 00UT in hours and L along RBSP-B trajectory where the cutoff energy in vertical direction calculated using LFM model is 21 MeV. </p> <p>acut_0907.txt and acutoff_0908.txt are the cutoff energy along RBSP-A orbit calculated using TS07. The first column is time in seconds, the next three columns are the satellite location (radial distance in Re, latitude and longitude), and the last three columns are the cutoff energy in MeV in west, vertical and east direction. </p> <p>bcut_0907.txt and bcutoff_0908.txt are the cutoff energy along RBSP-B orbit calculated using TS07. The first column is time in seconds, the next three columns are the satellite location (radial distance in Re, latitude and longitude), and the last three columns are the cutoff energy in MeV in west, vertical and east direction. </p> <p>cutoffa_t700_fixed.dat and cutoffb_t700.dat are the cutoff energy along RBSP-A and RBSP-B orbits calculated using LFM. The first column is time in seconds, the next three columns are the satellite location (radial distance in Re, latitude and longitude), and the last three columns are the cutoff energy in MeV in west, vertical and east direction. </p> <p>tmax_test.txt is the cutoff energy using different tmax parameters at two time points. The first column is time in seconds from the start of the simulation. The next three column are the satellite location (radial distance in Re, latitude and longitude). The last three columns are the cutoff energy in MeV in west vertical and east directions. Lines corresponds to different tmax parameters. </p> <p>vap_081.txt and vap_082.txt are external Bz in nT measured by RBSP-B along an outbound orbit on 09/08 0719-1110UT and an inbound orbit on 09/08 1145-1545UT.</p> <p>ts05_081.txt and ts05_082.txt are external Bz in nT calculated using TS05 magnetic field model at RBSP-B location along an outbound orbit on 09/08 0719-1110UT and an inbound orbit on 09/08 1145-1545UT.</p> <p>ts07_081.txt and ts07_082.txt are external Bz in nT calculated using TS07 magnetic field model at RBSP-B location along an outbound orbit on 09/08 0719-1110UT and an inbound orbit on 09/08 1145-1545UT</p> <p>lfm_081.txt and lfm_082.txt are external Bz in nT calculated using LFM global MHD model at RBSP-B location along an outbound orbit on 09/08 0719-1110UT and an inbound orbit on 09/08 1145-1545UT</p> <p>b1430TS05 and EXTERNALTS07.txt are the magnetic field in nT calculated by TS05 and TS07 on 09/08 1430UT. </p>
List of specimens, collection numbers, localities, and GenBank accessions of sequences. The neotype of Scinax x‑signatus is underlined. New sequences produced for this study are in bold. Abbreviations are as follow. Countries: ARG = Argentina, BOL = Bolivia, BRA = Brazil, GUF = French Guiana, GUY = Guyana, MTQ = Martinique, PER = Peru, SUR = Suriname; Brazilian states: AP = Amapá, BA = Bahia, CE = Ceará, ES = Espírito Santo, MA = Maranhão, MG = Minas Gerais, PE = Pernambuco, RJ = Rio de Janeiro, RS = Rio Grande do Sul, SP = São Paulo. An asterisk (*) indicates approximate coordinates taken from Google Earth. in A neotype for Hyla x-signata Spix, 1824 (Amphibia, Anura, Hylidae)
List of specimens, collection numbers, localities, and GenBank accessions of sequences. The neotype of Scinax x‑signatus is underlined. New sequences produced for this study are in bold. Abbreviations are as follow. Countries: ARG = Argentina, BOL = Bolivia, BRA = Brazil, GUF = French Guiana, GUY = Guyana, MTQ = Martinique, PER = Peru, SUR = Suriname; Brazilian states: AP = Amapá, BA = Bahia, CE = Ceará, ES = Espírito Santo, MA = Maranhão, MG = Minas Gerais, PE = Pernambuco, RJ = Rio de Janeiro, RS = Rio Grande do Sul, SP = São Paulo. An asterisk (*) indicates approximate coordinates taken from Google Earth.
Anteile der Betreibertypen am Wachstum der deutschen Open-Access-Repositorien-Landschaft (1991-2013)
<p>Das vorliegende Diagramm visualisiert Teile der Forschungsdaten des 2014 Census of Open Access Repositories in Germany, Austria and Switzerland mit Fokus auf die Betreibertypen und ihrem Anteil am Wachstum der Open-Access-Repositorien-Landschaft in Deutschland. Das Diagramm wurde in folgendem Blogpost verwendet: </p>
Historische Entwicklung von Open-Access-Repositorien in Deutschland 1991-2013
<p>Die vorliegende Grafik zeigt die historische Entwicklung der deutschen Repositorienlandschaft von 1991-2013 auf Basis der Daten des 2014 Census of Open Access Repositories in Germany, Austria and Switzerland.<sup>1</sup></p> <p>Die X-Achse zeigt den zeitlichen Verlauf in Jahren von 1991 bis 2013, wann ein Open-Access-Repositorium (OAR), bzw. sein Vorgänger über das WWW erreichbar war. Die Y-Achse zeigt den DINI-Validator-Score, den ein OAR im Zuge der des 2014 Census bei der Überprüfung mit dem DINI-Validator erreicht hat.<sup>2</sup> Die erreichten Werte sind der Tabelle zu entnehmen. Der Durchmesser eines Kreises (bzw. die Kantenlänge beim Quadrat visualisiert die Größe eines OA, die mit der Anzahl der im OAR vorgehaltenen Items in der Tabelle angegeben sind. Die Farbe des Kreises/Quadrats gibt den Betreibertypen an. Die Form (Kreis/Quadrat) zeigt an, ob es sich um ein fachliches oder institutionelles OAR handelt. Die Zahl innerhalb des Kreises/Quadrats dient als Referenz zum Datensatz in der nebenstehenden Tabelle.</p> <p>1) Für die Forschungsdaten des 2014 Census siehe: http://doi.org/105281/zenodo.10734</p> <p>2) Siehe: http://oanet.cms.hu-berlin.de/validator/pages/validation_dini.xhtml</p> <p>Diese Grafik wird in folgendem Blogpost verwendet:</p> <p>http://libreas.wordpress.com/2014/12/01/eine-kurze-geschichte-der-open-access-repositorien-landschaft-in-deutschland-von-1991-2013/</p>
7 Fakten über deutsche Open-Access-Repositorien
<p>Basierend auf den Angaben von 81 Betreibern von Open-Access-Repositorien in Deutschland im Rahmen des 2014 Census of Open Access Repositories in Germany, Austria and Switzerland</p>
Jährliche Anzahl der gelaunchten Open-Access-Repositorien nach Betreibertypen in Deutschland (1991-2013)
<p>Das vorliegende Diagramm visualisiert Teile der Forschungsdaten des 2014 Census of Open Access Repositories in Germany, Austria and Switzerland mit Fokus auf die Betreiber. Das Diagramm wurde in folgendem Blogpost verwendet: </p> <p>http://libreas.wordpress.com/2014/12/01/eine-kurze-geschichte-der-open-access-repositorien-landschaft-in-deutschland-von-1991-2013/</p>
Jährliche Anzahl der gelaunchten Open-Access-Repositorien in Deutschland (1991-2013)
<p>Das vorliegende Diagramm visualisiert Teile der Forschungsdaten des 2014 Census of Open Access Repositories in Germany, Austria and Switzerland mit Fokus auf das Wachstum der Open-Access-Repositorien-Landschaft in Deutschland. Das Diagramm wurde in folgendem Blogpost verwendet: </p> <p>http://libreas.wordpress.com/2014/12/01/eine-kurze-geschichte-der-open-access-repositorien-landschaft-in-deutschland-von-1991-2013/</p>
Knowledge Freedom in computational science: a two stage peer-review process with KF Eligibility Access Review
<p>What is explained below is the <em>peer review process</em> applied by <em>Notes on Transdisciplinar</em><em>y Modelling for Environment </em>(NTMe). Authors and readers are encouraged to understand not only the process, but also the rationale behind the process, which is closely connected with the peculiar challenges faced by the scientific problems (computational-science modelling under uncertainty, in broad and heterogeneous contexts) in the scope of the journal. </p> <p> </p> <p><span class="math-tex">\(\mathsf{\Large\text{The rationale behind the peer-review process}}\)</span></p> <p><strong>Computational research problems for more than one discipline. </strong>Research specific to a particular disciplinary domain is typically authored, and then studied, by experts in that domain. Several conventions, assumptions, fundamental protocols and methodology practices, are shared by domain experts as a common ground. Given that proficiency in these aspects is a precondition for domain experts, this kind of knowledge is often implicit, and not well communicated within domain-specific literature. "Typical" data preprocessing, model settings, quality-assessment assumptions (and their "default" simplifications and shortcuts), in this literature are often minimally reported or omitted, because the domain-specific community of researchers and practitioners knows them so well that they may resemble a sort of acquired conditioned response. However, when in a wider research more than one disciplinary domain is connected among each other, then implicit unexpressed knowledge may lead to ambiguity, misuse of results, and avoidable errors - sometimes challengly difficult to detect. The more and more diverse the domains, the higher this risk might be.</p> <p><strong>Useful cross-domain building blocks. </strong>"Transdisciplinary" research may risk being misinterpreted as just the final summary list of results grabbed by autonomous disciplinary silos run in parallel. However, a poor ability to communicate computational methods and data - and their limitations - between multiple disciplinary domains would jeopardise the collective (cross-domain) ability to distill truly integrated computational science. Computational science for transdisciplinary problems requires a pragmatic, engineered, but reasonably simple and modular approach to break and connect disciplinary silos - when appropriate for the problems investigated. Publishing <em>useful</em> cross-domain building blocks of this approach is the aim of the peer-review process in NTMe.</p> <p><strong>Connecting disciplines, space and time scales under uncertainty: the need for a shared semantics. </strong>Wide-scale transdisciplinary modelling (WSTM) relies on methods proper to computational science for connecting multiple scientific disciplines, and shedding light on broad, complex problems. Several of the most pressing problems we face as a human society are only partially known in their chain of consequences, and hopelessly difficult to address by a single discipline and a narrow perspective. Some of these problems capture the specific interest by particularly exposed regions, but their mechanism is more general, with essential knowledge often lying in other spatial areas - or even other time periods - hence calling for a wider perspective. Multiple spatial and temporal scales, with dissimilar data resolution, are frequent in WSTM problems, since they are often dictated by the complexity of reality and the available data. A wide-scale extent typically implies uneven quality and availability of data, and many sources of uncertainty - which increases when assumptions, methods and semantics by different disciplines or research institutions do not easily merge. A truly transdisciplinary communication of this essential semantics requires the <em>freedom </em>to communicate scientific knowledge, accurately and transparently, between disciplinary and corporate barriers.</p> <p><strong>Real knowledge sharing in computational science. </strong>As a consequence, wide-scale transdisciplinary modelling demands a focus on reproducible research and real scientific knowledge freedom. Data and software freedom are essential aspects of knowledge freedom in computational science. Therefore, ideally published articles should also provide the readers with the data and source code of the described mathematical modelling. To maximise transparency, replicability, reproducibility and reusability, published data should be made available as open data while source code should be made available as free software. Communicating semantics even to non-experts in a given domain requires that mathematical assumptions, otherwise obvious within a specific discipline, are duly annotated in a portable and concise way. Accordingly, brief but semantically clear documentation of data, methods and software is a key precondition. Here, a two-stage peer review process is described in which scientific knowledge freedom is considered with a dedicated Eligibility Access Review. This new peer review process is applied by <em>Notes on Transdisciplinary Modelling for Environment</em> with a focus on WSTM for environment.</p> <p> </p> <p><span class="math-tex">\(\mathsf{\Large\text{The peer-review process}}\)</span></p> <p><strong>A two-stage peer review process to avoid single-use disposable computational science. </strong>The two-stage peer review process requires discussion papers to be published so as to receive feedback from the scientific community before their possible finalisation. Initial manuscript submission is subject to the soundness review outlined above, also ensuring eligibility criteria to be fulfilled so as to support scientific knowledge freedom. Although this concept is multifaceted, some few dimensions might be emphasised which broadly apply in computational science and engineering (CSE). Among the many possible eligibility criteria in CSE, it should be highlighted at least the need for: </p> <ul> <li>free software to have been published so as for it to be persistently available;</li> <li>appropriate licensing and source code review to have been done (portable modularisation, with semantics of mathematical data-transformation methods clearly annotated);</li> <li>free data to have been published so as for it to be persistently available (with semantics of quantities clearly annotated);</li> <li>a minimal share of free-access core references to be selected in order for scientists and research organisations not to be discriminated on the basis of their funding availability, when they try to access the core literature cited in the manuscript.</li> </ul> <p>Before acceptance for discussion, a manuscript (and its potential data, parameters and software) may be revised, without exposing to the public immature versions, until it becomes able to fulfil the eligibility criteria. These iterations between author(s) and editors/reviewers remain confidential, and a potential manuscript rejection does not preclude resubmission. Acceptance of the manuscript to the discussion stage is followed by the permanent publication of the accepted version. This does not preclude, and actually encourages, further revised versions to be resubmitted. Any new revision is subject to eligibility access review, which takes into account the submission history of the manuscript and the already accepted public older versions.</p> <p><strong>Not a static publication. </strong>The discussion stage of the peer review process allows short comments to be submitted by referees and the scientific community, while authors are encouraged to interact with pending comments by providing their responses. During this stage, the paper accepted for discussion is already citable. Depending on the specific goals of each research problem, the discussion may remain open for a short time interval, or instead for a noticeably longer period of time (even indefinitely, if appropriate: for example, whenever authors do consider publishing cumulative milestone versions as important). There is not an a-priori limit to the duration of this first stage, and to the number of intermediate public revisions (which are optional), for a paper accepted for discussion. The second stage of peer review concludes the discussion stage with the submission of a revised manuscript, with final review and corrections. Fulfilment of the eligibility criteria is required over all the publication stages.<br> The published materials might be updated from time to time (at the authors' discretion), and - after peer-reviewing the changes - published so that the evolution is clear and available to others. Although preferred and encouraged in the discussion stage, updates are possible even after the final stage. Revisions offering a noticeably different content, compared with the previous versions, might sometime be recommended by editors/reviewers as deserving the status of a new publication - not to confuse the readers. This implies the full two-stage review process has to be applied to the new publication (as an independent publication), while the previous accepted publication is considered as the final permanent version. Recalling an analogy with the typical evolution of free-software, a software package is frequently subject to future improvements and corresponding new versions. If a new version is too different from the original package, it may become a new independent package. </p> <p><strong>Scientific opinions, perspectives, and overviews.</strong> Manuscripts focusing on computational science methods, data, parameters, and software are expected to contribute practical components of scientific knowledge which can be adapted, modified, or generally integrated within the future body of knowledge - potentially in unexpected ways. Therefore, the aforementioned two-stage review is, overall, meant to ease the future invention of derivative works. On the other hand, manuscripts offering expert opinions on these topics do not contribute "practical" components to be directly modified. Instead, they contribute organised ideas to support the evolution of scientific knowledge. Therefore, the peer review process for this typology of manuscripts focuses on:</p> <ul> <li>the broad understandability and potential interest of the expert opinions, and</li> <li>the factual correctness of the objective elements included in the opinion (with adequate bibliographic, tabular, visual support where appropriate). </li> </ul> <p><strong>Preregistration, protocols and methods. </strong>NTMe accepts a third typology of manuscripts, focusing on anticipated results (hence not yet computed) which are expected following a modelling procedure to transform input data and parameters into the desired output. As data and software are only anticipated in this typology of manuscripts, the peer-review process focuses on:</p> <ul> <li>the broad understandability and potential interest of the proposed protocol or methodology,</li> <li>the correctness and clarity of the mathematical formulation of the proposed computational-modelling steps (data-transformation modules),</li> <li>the discussion of anticipated results, pitfalls, sources of uncertainty and their proper management, bifurcations of the methodology depending on the potential variants that a user may desire to apply (depending on available data and their quality, and on the desired specialisation of the proposed general method), and</li> <li>the adequacy of bibliographic, tabular, visual supports where appropriate. </li> </ul> <p><strong>Abstract, and plain language summary. </strong>Each article includes a technical abstract. Although the topics of published content might deal with domain-specific aspects of computational/environmental science, their focused analysis is expected to support wider research in a transdisciplinary context. Therefore, the abstract is expected to be accessible beyond the domain-specific research community. Each article, either in the discussion or in the final stage, in addition to a technical abstract needs a <em>plain language summary</em> so that non-experts and readers with a basic scientific and technical literacy can understand the main contributions of the article. The aim of the plain language summary is to support educational dissemination. The summary is not a simpler abstract, and typically offers a longer, more comprehensive description. It is realised with an editorial support to authors, so as to respect a general structure (unless otherwise agreed):</p> <ul> <li>first, the general context of the work is presented (the general topics in which the work is situated);</li> <li>second, the general open questions are introduced to which the work aims to contribute;</li> <li>third, the specific way is described in which the work contributes to progress on the general open questions;</li> <li>fourth, the implications, new opportunities or suggested lines of research, and potential limitations and unaswered questions are summarised.</li> </ul> <p><strong>Constructive peer review.</strong> The ultimate aim of the peer review process is to support authors, and future readers, in sharing useful, durable, and understandable notes of transdisciplinary knowledge. Given the very nature of the topics in NTMe, the need for a cogent peer review on a multiplicity of expertise fields is essential. Rarely a single reviewer is able to cover all the aspects of transdiciplinary computational science. Even so, different opinions by different reviewers may emerge on specific points. Therefore, a <em>constructive </em>approach is promoted during each step of the peer review process, so that authors are guided to understand the peer review, and a compendium of recommandations may be presented in a consistent way.</p> <p> </p> <p><sup>© 2012-2020 Daniele de Rigo. This work is licensed under a </sup><a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/legalcode"><sup>Creative Commons Attribution No Derivatives 4.0 International</sup></a><sup> license. Please, cite as<br> de Rigo, D., 2012. </sup><strong><sup>Knowledge Freedom in computational science: a two stage peer-review process with KF eligibility access review</sup></strong><sup>. </sup><em><sup>Zenodo, </sup></em><sup>CERN. </sup><a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7578"><sup>https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7578</sup></a><sup> </sup></p> <p> </p>
Journal Selection Factors and Opinions about Open Access of Austrian Researchers in the Humanities and Social Sciences
<p>Data from the Study of Open Access Publishing Data (SOAP, http://bit.ly/ejuvKO) has been selected to explain why the uptake of Open Access publishing in the humanities and social sciences in Austria is reluctant compared to other fields. Two questions from the survey seemed to be especially relevant in this context: factors to choose a journal for publishing and general opinions about Open Access.</p>
Samples and data accessibility in research biobanks
<p>This dataset contains answers at a questionnaire relative to modes of sample and data accessibility in research Biobanks</p>
COINatlantic Data Accessibility Organisational Self Assessment Tool: CODATA Webinar
<p>Presentation, recordings and the <em>Data Accessibility Benchmark Organisational Self-Assessment Tool</em>, which was the subject of a CODATA webinar given on 18 and 19 January 2016. The presenter was Andrew Sherin, Director of the Atlantic Coastal Zone Information Steering Committee Secretariat.</p>
DOI linked by Wikipedia and available in green Open Access
<p>List of 399684 digital object identifiers (185790 unique) linked from the pages of Wikipedia in all languages (the 140 most visited subdomains according to stats.wikimedia.org, one file for each) and available on DOAI.io as redirect to an URL other than dx.doi.org.</p> <p>Those DOIs represent a cross section of research publications which are significant to the larger community of citizens and are available to them thanks to the green Open Access repositories.</p> <p>The script used to produce the dataset is also attached.</p>
Open Access Journal Publishing in the Agricultural Sciences
<p>A survey was conducted on scholarly research communication and the prospects of Open Access (OA) to the scholarly research dissemination in India by Open Knowledge Society (OKS). The India's National Agricultural Research System (NARS) has been choosen as a case study for exploring the possibility of OA in publishing agricultural research. With over 90 Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) institutes and 42 agricultural universities, established by respective states at State level across the country, the Indian NARS, is one of the largest NARS of the world. The ICAR is the apex organization of Indian NARS coordinating the agricultural research and education of the country. The agriculture research output mainly comes from publicly funded projects, and many of the research centers and universities publish research journals (peer-reviewed) and magazines even in local languages apart from English. Beside, there are many professional societies in agriculture and related sciences publishing peer reviewed journals. However, majority of these journals are traditional print journals and thus are less visible to the outside world. In the country, the researchers cannot have the access to the published literature without the subscription to those journals and many of the libraries do not subscribe all the journals. From India, only four journals in the area of agriculture and animal sciences found in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). Hence, it is felt that there is a tremendous potential for the research output to be made available to World with the OKS intervention and with the help of Open Journal System (OJS) software. OKS would like to bring this point forward and hope it can bring some change and create awareness about OA publishing in Agricultural research in India. The survey revealed that there are more than 100 journals which are being published in India on agricultural research by the universities, research centers and professional societies. However these publishers are not aware of the goodness of online open access publications. There is a need for creating awareness among the authors and publishers to embrace the latest Internet technologies for publication of research journals by persuasion campaigns. OKS is keen to promote Open Access Publishing (OAP) using OJS by helping institutions to setup their journals and also build an indexing system for Indian agricultural journals. The result would definitely help Indian researchers and the end user farmer community and also help other developing countries to improve their knowledge.</p>
OAPEN usage report for open access books funded by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) 2014 - 2016
<p>For several years now, the Stand-Alone Publications Programme by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) has been funding the production and simultaneous open-access publication of academic books, see: <a href="http://www.fwf.ac.at/en/research-funding/fwf-programmes/stand-alone-publications/">http://www.fwf.ac.at/en/research-funding/fwf-programmes/stand-alone-publications/</a></p> <p>All FWF-funded books are accessible free of charge in the FWF E-Book Library <a href="https://e-book.fwf.ac.at/">https://e-book.fwf.ac.at/</a> and in the OAPEN Library <a href="http://www.oapen.org/search">http://www.oapen.org/search</a>. </p> <p>The OAPEN Library’s annual data on book usage for 2014 to 2016 shows that the number of archived open-access books is rising steadily, as is the number of downloads per book.</p>
An open-access CMIP5 pattern library for temperature and precipitation: Description and methodology.
<p>The pattern library is available on GitHub through the Joint Global Change Research Institution repository (https://github.com/JGCRI/CMIP5_patterns). GitHub is a web-based version control repository and Internet hosting service which uses git concepts and commands. The purpose of creating this pattern library was to allow for researchers across various fields to be able to efficiently use the statistical patterns generated by the described regression method to examine model response to change in global mean temperature for all the available CMIP5 models (41 models, at present). We also further intend for those patterns to be easy to scale using a scaler generated from a SCM of ones choosing.</p> <p>The pattern library contains patterns, generated by the least squared regression methodology, for the first realization of the 41 CMIP5 climate models. Annual, seasonal, and monthly patterns are provided for surface temperature and precipitation. For temperature patterns, units in Celsius were used as it is the standard temperature units for impact analysis.</p> <p>Included in each netCDF file for each model is:<br> 1. The individual model pattern (2-D);<br> 2. The adjusted R2 between the predictor and dependent terms (2-D);<br> 3. The standard error of the estimated regression coefficient (2-D);<br> 4. A historical climatology based on the 1961-1990 average from each model (2-D), which can be used to construct absolute values at time X;</p> <p>5. The 95th percentile confidence level pattern for model parameters.</p> <p>The patterns from all 41 CMIP5 models range in size (165 kB to 1 MB) due to spatial resolution, but all patterns were kept at the native resolution of the dependent variable and no regridding of input/output variables were done. This was done to retain model specific information, which may have been lost if regridded to a common spatial resolution.</p> <p>All source code used to produce patterns is available in the aforementioned repository. Source code is written in NCAR Command Language (Version 6.3.0; http://dx.doi.org/10.5065/D6WD3XH5).</p>
Austrian Science Fund (FWF) Open Access Compliance Monitoring 2016
<p><strong>I. Executive summary</strong></p> <p>The Austrian Science Fund (FWF), which is Austria's main funding organisation for basic research, encourages and helps all project leaders and project staff members to make their peer-reviewed research results freely available on the Internet. Since 1 January 2016, open access has been mandatory for all peer-reviewed publications listed in final reports on FWF-funded projects. Any exceptions must be clearly indicated and justified. For projects that started after 1 January 2015, open access has been compulsory for all peer-reviewed publications.</p> <p>All principal investigators in FWF-funded projects are obliged to submit a final report within three months of completing their projects.</p> <p>The publications and other data mentioned in those reports are archived and analysed by the FWF. This report examines the state of compliance with open access requirements on the basis of final project reports submitted in the year 2016.</p> <p>Main findings:</p> <ul> <li>A total of 6,994 publications were listed in the final project reports submitted in 2016.</li> <li>Of those publications, 5,146 were conclusively identified as peer-reviewed.</li> <li>Regarding compliance with the FWF's Open Access Policy, the report shows that 92% of the peer-reviewed publications that arose from FWF projects in 2016 are openly accessible (2015: 83%).</li> <li>The most frequently chosen option is hybrid open access (40%). Since last year's report, the use of green open access has increased by 3%, other open access by 5%, and gold open access by 2%.</li> <li>The majority of peer-reviewed publications submitted are journal articles, 93% of which are openly accessible.</li> <li>The lowest rate of compliance with the FWF's Open Access Policy can be found in editions, contributions to edited volumes and monographs (58%).</li> <li>Although open access is not compulsory, 48% of non peer-reviewed publications are freely available through the internet.</li> <li>The absolute number of publications listed in final reports in 2016 includes 321 publications that are mentioned several times in different projects; however, those repetitions do not ultimately affect the relative share of open access publications (92%).</li> </ul> <p><strong>II. Bias</strong></p> <p>All publications were entered in the FWF’s database manually and with the utmost care when the final project reports were received. Nevertheless, it is not possible to rule out minor errors entirely. Moreover, some systematic problems need to be solved in the future; the FWF is currently preparing to implement a research information system in which FWF-funded researchers will be able to enter and update their research data on an ongoing basis.</p> <ul> <li>Due to the amount of data involved, it was not possible to check the current open access status of all publications twice. The last check was performed in January 2017.</li> <li>In some cases, the embargo period may have expired after submission, and publications labelled "Other open access" in the FWF’s database may now be accessible through green open access.</li> <li>Whenever the status "peer-reviewed" could not be clearly identified according to FWF guidelines, the publications were classified as non peer-reviewed.</li> </ul>
ScienceDex guides
Understand access before you commit
These curated guides explain access requirements, typical timelines, costs, and reuse considerations for widely used research datasets.
Allen Brain Atlas
Allen Brain Atlas is an Allen Institute collection of brain map atlases, datasets, APIs, and analysis tools covering mouse, human, and non-human primate brain resources.
Annotated Behaviour and Observability Dataset (ABODe)
ABODe is a University of Edinburgh DataShare dataset for behavior classification in group-housed mice using home-cage video, identities, bounding boxes, ground-plate positions, and annotator labels.
DANDI Archive for NWB datasets
DANDI is a BRAIN Initiative archive for publishing and sharing neurophysiology data, including electrophysiology, optophysiology, and behavioral data packaged as NWB and related standards.
International Brain Laboratory public data
The International Brain Laboratory public data releases expose standardized mouse decision-making experiments, including Neuropixels recordings, widefield calcium imaging, behavior, and session metadata accessed through the ONE API.
OpenNeuro
OpenNeuro is a free, open platform for sharing neuroimaging datasets, with public search, dataset pages, and download paths for web, S3, DataLad, and the OpenNeuro CLI.