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.
57
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
57 results for “scholarly communication”
Figure 3c. from: Defining the Scholarly Commons - Reimagining Research Communication. Report of Force11 SCWG Workshop, Madrid, Spain, February 25-27, 2016 - Research Ideas and Outcomes 2: e9340 (26 May 2016) https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.2.e9340
Figure 3c. - Islands of possibilities (part of YKON facilitation) at Madrid workshopFigure 3a.Islands of possibilities located in workshop roomFigure 3b.Personality modification islandFigure 3c.Observation island <br> Observation island
Figure 3a. from: Defining the Scholarly Commons - Reimagining Research Communication. Report of Force11 SCWG Workshop, Madrid, Spain, February 25-27, 2016 - Research Ideas and Outcomes 2: e9340 (26 May 2016) https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.2.e9340
Figure 3a. - Islands of possibilities (part of YKON facilitation) at Madrid workshopFigure 3a.Islands of possibilities located in workshop roomFigure 3b.Personality modification islandFigure 3c.Observation island <br> Islands of possibilities located in workshop room
Figure 8a. from: Defining the Scholarly Commons - Reimagining Research Communication. Report of Force11 SCWG Workshop, Madrid, Spain, February 25-27, 2016 - Research Ideas and Outcomes 2: e9340 (26 May 2016) https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.2.e9340
Figure 8a. - Workshop visualization - collection of ideas and group visionsFigure 8a.Visualization showing all ideas generated collectively in the first round (session 3, dark grey) or second round (session 4, light grey), and those generated by the respective groups (solid colors) as part of their vision of scholarly communication. Figure 8b.Visualizaton showing all groups' visions as interconnected elements (triples), with common elements overlapping. <br>
Market Research - What's become... of new entrants in research workflows and scholarly communication? ('long list')
<p>Market Research - What’s become... of new entrants in research workflows and scholarly communication?</p> <p>Full report to be published as preprint on OSF Preprints shortly.</p> <p>To systematically create a list of the new entrants in research workflows and scholarly communication that I’ve seen over the years, I used a range of resources, listed hereunder:</p> <ul> <li>400+ Tools and innovations in scholarly communication (charting the <a href="http://bit.ly/innoscholcomm-list">creation and availability</a> (supply side))<a href="#_edn1">[i]</a>. This database continues to build on the 2015-2016 survey by Bianca Kramer & Jeroen Bosman (both at Utrecht University Library), who are interested in the way information is created, shared, and processed in academia<a href="#_edn2">[ii]</a>. From this source I pulled 683 players. From the answers to the open and closed questions in the 2015-2016 survey I found 225 players.</li> <li>Presenters at STM events<a href="#_edn3">[iii]</a> from 2010-2017. This contributed 53 players.</li> <li>Outsell<a href="#_edn4">[iv]</a> ‘Companies to watch’, as per their annual Information Industry Outlook (2009-2017). This source provided 29 players.</li> <li>Pitches at APE (Academic Publishing in Europe) Conferences<a href="#_edn5">[v]</a> between 2011-2017. Here I found 44 players.</li> <li>Nominees for the ALPSP Award for Innovation in Publishing. This source contributed 10 players from 2014-2017.<a href="#_edn6">[vi]</a>.</li> </ul> <p>This file contains the 'long list' per 31 December 2018.</p> <p><a href="#_ednref1">[i]</a> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1KUMSeq_Pzp4KveZ7pb5rddcssk1XBTiLHniD0d3nDqo/edit#gid=0</p> <p><a href="#_ednref2">[ii]</a> https://101innovations.wordpress.com/</p> <p><a href="#_ednref3">[iii]</a> https://www.stm-assoc.org/events/?previous</p> <p><a href="#_ednref4">[iv]</a> https://www.outsellinc.com/</p> <p><a href="#_ednref5">[v]</a> https://www.ape2019.eu/ape-literature</p> <p><a href="#_ednref6">[vi]</a> https://www.alpsp.org/Awards</p>
Market Research - What's become... of new entrants in research workflows and scholarly communication? ('sample V2')
<p>Market Research - What’s become... of new entrants in research workflows and scholarly communication?</p> <p>Full report to be published as preprint on OSF Preprints shortly.</p> <p>To systematically create a list of the new entrants, a range of approaches and sources were used. This resulted in a long list (see: <a href="https://zenodo.org/record/2530048#.XDnfnFxKjIV">https://zenodo.org/record/2530048#.XDnfnFxKjIV</a>).</p> <p>The ‘long list’ was shortened to a sample of 120 independent for-profit startups through various filtering exercises, described in the full report. For the sample, three questions were investigated: 1. Did they still exist (independently) in 2018? 2. If so, how were they funded and how were they doing? 3. If they were acquired by 2018, by whom and when were they taken over?</p> <p>This file contains the ‘sample’ and answers to the research questions per 31 December 2018.</p>
LIBER 2019 Workshop. Open Access books in academic libraries – how can we adapt workflows and cost management to an open scholarly communications landscape?
<p>This dataset includes all the results from a workshop held at the LIBER Annual Conference 2019 on June 26, 2019, in Dublin, Ireland. The workshop aimed at collecting and discussing current library practices related to open access books.</p> <p>The dataset includes information from a survey made in preparation for the conference, where 67 European libraries responded to a questionnaire based on activities or workflows in libraries related to open access books. Both the survey questionnaire and the results from the survey are uploaded as separate files.</p> <p>The dataset also includes the presentation made by keynote speaker Eelco Ferwerda from the OAPEN Foundation. He presented results based on the 2017 landscape study report on open access monographs with some new results from more recent studies by Springer Nature and a follow-up report by Knowledge Exchange.</p> <p>Olaf Siegert from ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics presented a brief overview of what libraries can do to promote OA books in terms of collection management, publication services and development of staff and organisation. The conclusion is that it is not necessarily big changes that are needed.</p> <p>Sofie Wennström presented results from a survey aimed at European research libraries on behalf of the LIBER Open Access Working Group. The survey reveals that many libraries are already working with processes to promote OA books. This is done by libraries organising publishing services or inhouse publishing, by including OA books in discovery services and repositories and by supporting authors to learn more about open access and open licensing.</p> <p>Finally, the LIBER Open Access Working Group shares a report from the workshop providing some quick takeaways and some good examples brought up during the breakout session with the workshop participants.</p>
Dataset for Perspectives on Open Science and The Future of Scholarly Communication: Internet Trackers, Algorithmic Persuasion and Robotic Process Automation
<p>This data set was created between 01-04.2021, to study the current landscape of using web trackers in scholarly communication. The data set is part of an article (manuscript) that is intended to be published under the this title: Perspectives on Open Science and The Future of Scholarly Communication: Internet Trackers, Algorithmic Persuasion and Robotic Process Automation.</p>
Open Chat Series: How-to-Advocacy "Why advocate for open scholarly communication in the social sciences and humanities?"
<p>On the 21.10.2022 Alíz Horváth, researcher, expert in East Asian studies, creator of “Humanista” podcast - and member of OPERAS's Special Interest Group "Advocacy" moderated an Open Chat with our guest speaker Per Pippin Aspaas, Head of Library Research and Publishing Support at the UiT in Tromsø, discussing the question "Why advocate for scholarly communication in the social sciences and humanities?"</p>
Open Chat Series: How-to-Advocacy "How to Advocate for Innovation in Scholarly Communication?"
<p>On 25. November 2022 Magdalena Wnuk moderated the Open Chat with Maciej Maryl from IBL PAN and talked about how to advocate for innovation in scholarly communication. Together with our guest speaker and the audience we discussed the advocacy goals and challenges for the SSH community while advocating for innovation in open science. </p>
Figure 1. from: Defining the Scholarly Commons - Reimagining Research Communication. Report of Force11 SCWG Workshop, Madrid, Spain, February 25-27, 2016 - Research Ideas and Outcomes 2: e9340 (26 May 2016) https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.2.e9340
Figure 1. - Demographic breakdown of workshop attendees
Figure 4. from: Defining the Scholarly Commons - Reimagining Research Communication. Report of Force11 SCWG Workshop, Madrid, Spain, February 25-27, 2016 - Research Ideas and Outcomes 2: e9340 (26 May 2016) https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.2.e9340
Figure 4. - Perspective Engine
Figure 2. from: Defining the Scholarly Commons - Reimagining Research Communication. Report of Force11 SCWG Workshop, Madrid, Spain, February 25-27, 2016 - Research Ideas and Outcomes 2: e9340 (26 May 2016) https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.2.e9340
Figure 2. - Opening night presentation by Maryann Martone (available as Google Slides)
Figure 1 from: Smith V, Rycroft S, Brake I, Scott B, Baker E, Livermore L, Blagoderov V, Roberts D (2011) Scratchpads 2.0: a Virtual Research Environment supporting scholarly collaboration, communication and data publication in biodiversity science. ZooKeys 150: 53-70. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.150.2193
Figure 1 - Scratchpad usage statistics from February 2007 to September 2011. The black dashed line represents the number of Scratchpad community sites (in hundreds) and the blue solid line represents the number of registered users (in thousands). As of September 2011 we have switched to recording the number of active users (currently 4424) since this figure provides a more accurate guide to usage.
Figure 2 from: Smith V, Rycroft S, Brake I, Scott B, Baker E, Livermore L, Blagoderov V, Roberts D (2011) Scratchpads 2.0: a Virtual Research Environment supporting scholarly collaboration, communication and data publication in biodiversity science. ZooKeys 150: 53-70. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.150.2193
Figure 2 - Screenshots of the Scratchpad 2 publication module showing an example workflow. Top, the section writing tool showing material and methods section; middle, the relationship selector that allows a taxon and additional materials to be associated with a section of the publication; and bottom, supplementary files such as illustrations, photos or graphs can be added to complete the publication.
Figure 8b from: Kramer B, Bosman J, Ignac M, Kral C, Kalleinen T, Koskinen P, Bruno I, Buckland A, Callaghan S, Champieux R, Chapman C, Hagstrom S, Martone M, Murphy F, O'Donnell D (2016) Defining the Scholarly Commons - Reimagining Research Communication. Report of Force11 SCWG Workshop, Madrid, Spain, February 25-27, 2016. Research Ideas and Outcomes 2: e9340. https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.2.e9340
Figure 8b - Visualizaton showing all groups' visions as interconnected elements (triples), with common elements overlapping.
Figure 8a from: Kramer B, Bosman J, Ignac M, Kral C, Kalleinen T, Koskinen P, Bruno I, Buckland A, Callaghan S, Champieux R, Chapman C, Hagstrom S, Martone M, Murphy F, O'Donnell D (2016) Defining the Scholarly Commons - Reimagining Research Communication. Report of Force11 SCWG Workshop, Madrid, Spain, February 25-27, 2016. Research Ideas and Outcomes 2: e9340. https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.2.e9340
Figure 8a - Visualization showing all ideas generated collectively in the first round (session 3, dark grey) or second round (session 4, light grey), and those generated by the respective groups (solid colors) as part of their vision of scholarly communication.
Figure 7b from: Kramer B, Bosman J, Ignac M, Kral C, Kalleinen T, Koskinen P, Bruno I, Buckland A, Callaghan S, Champieux R, Chapman C, Hagstrom S, Martone M, Murphy F, O'Donnell D (2016) Defining the Scholarly Commons - Reimagining Research Communication. Report of Force11 SCWG Workshop, Madrid, Spain, February 25-27, 2016. Research Ideas and Outcomes 2: e9340. https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.2.e9340
Figure 7b - Example of Trello card comment with link to another idea. #dep_on - idea depends on another idea; "https://trello.com/c/RaNcbKSe" - is the short link to the Trello card with the connected idea. In the visualization it would be represented as a line connecting two ideas.
Figure 7a from: Kramer B, Bosman J, Ignac M, Kral C, Kalleinen T, Koskinen P, Bruno I, Buckland A, Callaghan S, Champieux R, Chapman C, Hagstrom S, Martone M, Murphy F, O'Donnell D (2016) Defining the Scholarly Commons - Reimagining Research Communication. Report of Force11 SCWG Workshop, Madrid, Spain, February 25-27, 2016. Research Ideas and Outcomes 2: e9340. https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.2.e9340
Figure 7a - Example of Trello card with tags. "using the public domain" - the idea name; #G2 - the idea came from the Group 2; #viz - the idea is ready to be included in the visualization; #triple - the idea has a link to another idea in the group's vision.
Data from: An international, multi-stakeholder survey about metadata awareness, knowledge, and use in scholarly communications
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Figure 9c from: Kramer B, Bosman J, Ignac M, Kral C, Kalleinen T, Koskinen P, Bruno I, Buckland A, Callaghan S, Champieux R, Chapman C, Hagstrom S, Martone M, Murphy F, O'Donnell D (2016) Defining the Scholarly Commons - Reimagining Research Communication. Report of Force11 SCWG Workshop, Madrid, Spain, February 25-27, 2016. Research Ideas and Outcomes 2: e9340. https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.2.e9340
Figure 9c - One group's suggested principles (session 11)
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.