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.
794
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.7.1
Dataset results
794 results for “publishing”
FIGURE 6 in More cautionary tales: family, generic and species synonymies of recently published taxa of ghost and mud shrimps (Decapoda: Axiidea and Gebiidea)
FIGURE 6. Upogebia balmaorum Ngoc-Ho, 1990. A, B, C, female holotype of Kuwaitupogebia nithyanandan, SMF 48913; D, male paratype of K. nithyanandan (3.4 mm); E, female paratype of K. nithyanandan (3.6 mm), SMF 48914; A, D, E, front, dorsal aspect; B, front, lateral aspect; C, uropods, arroW points to proXimal spine on eXopod. Scale bar = 1 mm.
Global riverine DOC flux by TRIPLEX-HYDRA model and a comparison with a published DOC database
<p>A database of global riverine DOC flux simulated by TRIPLEX-HYDRA model. And the temporal variation of riverine DOC flux in terms of different continents, oceans and latitudinal bands. </p>
Deliverables 3 e. - Created and published list of feed ingredients with boar taint reducing capacities (WG2)
<p>This report represents Deliverable #2 of the action and was written under the direction of Ulrike Weiler and Michel Bonneau, the chair and vice-chair, respectively, of the COST Action CA 15215 with acronym IPEMA.</p>
Fig. 17 in Consortium of European Taxonomic Facilities (CETAF) best practices in electronic publishing in taxonomy
Fig. 17. Open Access benefits, from Aston University Library Services (available from https://www.yearofopen.org/march-open-perspective-open-access/).
Fig. 2 in Consortium of European Taxonomic Facilities (CETAF) best practices in electronic publishing in taxonomy
Fig. 2. Here, "Whalen (1989)" is cited in the taxonomic treatment but not listed in the references section (Knapp et al. 2017).
Fig. 1 in Consortium of European Taxonomic Facilities (CETAF) best practices in electronic publishing in taxonomy
Fig. 1. The reference highlighted in yellow is listed under the references section, even though it has not been cited anywhere else in the article (Coritico et al. 2017).
Fig. 6 in Consortium of European Taxonomic Facilities (CETAF) best practices in electronic publishing in taxonomy
Fig. 6. Authorships formally presented as references, those in yellow are listed in the references section whereas those in orange are not considered as bibliographic references. A. Musavu Moussavou (2017). B. Mendoza-Garfias et al. (2017).
Fig. 9 in Consortium of European Taxonomic Facilities (CETAF) best practices in electronic publishing in taxonomy
Fig. 9. In this example the references in yellow are not provided in the bibliographic section, but the the one in green is, because it has been formally mentioned elsewhere in the article as a reference (Rakotondrainibe & Jouy 2016).
Fig. 13 in Consortium of European Taxonomic Facilities (CETAF) best practices in electronic publishing in taxonomy
Fig. 13. The authorships highlighted in yellow are cited nowhere else in the article and yet they are listed in the references section (Schott & Evans 2016).
Fig. 5 in Consortium of European Taxonomic Facilities (CETAF) best practices in electronic publishing in taxonomy
Fig. 5. Authorship formally presented as a reference. A. Kim et al. (2017). B. Lanteri & del Rio (2017).
Fig. 15 in Consortium of European Taxonomic Facilities (CETAF) best practices in electronic publishing in taxonomy
Fig. 15. Different routes for disseminating scientific publications (Cabut & Larousserie 2013, redrawn by Laurence Bénichou from Infographie du Monde).
Fig. 8 in Consortium of European Taxonomic Facilities (CETAF) best practices in electronic publishing in taxonomy
Fig. 8. All authorships cited highlighted in yellow are listed in the references section even though they are not cited as a bibliographic reference anywhere else in the text (Pole & McLoughlin 2017).
Fig. 14 in Consortium of European Taxonomic Facilities (CETAF) best practices in electronic publishing in taxonomy
Fig. 14. Scholar production costs. Four steps are needed to produce scholar papers, of which three are publicly-funded. In the first scenario, the library pays back the final product by subscription to the publisher while in the second, the publishing costs are supported by the publisher (commercial or institutional) and then the access is free for the reader.
Fig. 7 in Consortium of European Taxonomic Facilities (CETAF) best practices in electronic publishing in taxonomy
Fig. 7. In this article the reference highlighted in orange indicates a reference that is only cited under taxonomic treatment and listed under the references section; in yellow a reference that is cited elsewhere thus listed under the references section; in blue are the references that should have been listed but are not in the references section (Waite R. & Allmon W.D. 2016).
Fig. 12 in Consortium of European Taxonomic Facilities (CETAF) best practices in electronic publishing in taxonomy
Fig. 12. Here "Bleeker, 1857" is considered by the authors as a bibliographical reference and listed as such under the references section although it has not been cited elsewhere in the text (Tucker et al. 2016).
Fig. 11 in Consortium of European Taxonomic Facilities (CETAF) best practices in electronic publishing in taxonomy
Fig. 11. Underlined in blue are the references linked to the bibliography (considered as such because they are cited in an unambiguous way elsewhere in the text) whereas those in black are not linked because they are not listed in the bibliography (Foley et al. 2017).
Fig. 4 in Consortium of European Taxonomic Facilities (CETAF) best practices in electronic publishing in taxonomy
Fig. 4. The references highlighted in orange are not listed in the References section whereas the reference in yellow, because it is recent, is listed (Ardenghi et al. 2016).
Fig. 10 in Consortium of European Taxonomic Facilities (CETAF) best practices in electronic publishing in taxonomy
Fig. 10. In this article "Utinomi 1958" is cited only in the taxonomic treatment (but nowhere else in the text) and referenced in the bibliographic section (Yu et al. 2017).
Fig. 3 in Consortium of European Taxonomic Facilities (CETAF) best practices in electronic publishing in taxonomy
Fig. 3. Contrary to the example in Fig. 2, and despite it being published in the same journal, here "Cholnoky 1957" is cited only in the taxonomic treatment (and nowhere else in the text) and referenced under the bibliographic section (Jahn et al. 2017).
Supplementary movies of the Kaikoura dynamic rupture model published in Ulrich et al. (2019)
<p>Ulrich, T., Gabriel, A. A., Ampuero, J. P., & Xu, W. (2018). Dynamic viability of the 2016 Mw 7.8 Kaikōura earthquake cascade on weak crustal faults.</p>
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.