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.
93
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
93 results for “Peer Review”
Viral Validation: How the New Journal 'Rapid Reviews: COVID-19′ Accelerates Peer Review and Publishing
<p><strong>Episode Summary:</strong></p> <p>In this episode we talk to Professor Stefano Bertozzi, editor-in-chief Rapid Reviews: COVID-19 (RR:C19). This new open access overlay journal from the MIT Press is aiming to publish expert peer reviews of new COVID-19 research which will help validate and accelerate the discovery of high impact, useful studies. We discussed how the journal will work, the role human and AI input will play, and the importance of pan-disciplinary content. </p> <p><strong>Episode Links:</strong></p> <ul> <li><a href="https://rapidreviewscovid19.mitpress.mit.edu/">Rapid Reviews: COVID-19 Journal</a></li> <li><a href="https://mitpress.mit.edu/">MIT Press</a></li> <li><a href="https://publichealth.berkeley.edu/people/stefano-bertozzi/">Professor Stefano Bertozzi</a> <ul> <li><a href="https://twitter.com/StefBertozzi">Twitter</a></li> </ul> </li> </ul>
Dataset for "Gender, Age and Peer Reviewed Articles"
Compacts unanalyzed results used for "Gender, Age and Peer Reviewed Articles", compiled from the initial Access data file. Author and article identification numbers have been omitted.
Data archive for the peer-reviewed journal article "Major source categories of PM2.5 oxidative potential in wintertime Beijing and surroundings based on online dithiothreitol-based field measurements"
<p>This data archive accompanying the article "Major source categories of PM2.5 oxidative potential in wintertime Beijing and surroundings based on online dithiothreitol-based field measurements", which was accepted in April 2024 in the peer-reviewed journal <strong><em>Science of the Total Environment</em></strong>. This data archive contains the processed OPvDTT measurements, chemical speciation of PM2.5, and source contribution used in the manuscript.</p>
Human vs. Machine: How Software Engineers Perceive and Engage with AI-Assisted Code Reviews Compared to Their Peers
<p>This Shared Document Package contains the supplementary materials package for the study, "Human vs. Machine: How Software Engineers Perceive and Engage with AI-Assisted Code Reviews Compared to Their Peers." The package contains all relevant documentation and materials utilized during the study, except interview transcripts. Documents shared in this packes are to assist the readers understand and verify the research protocol and data collection process. It contains:</p> <ol> <li>README file</li> <li>Questionnaire for interview pre-selection</li> <li>Participants’ submitted code snippets</li> <li>Code reviews submitted by participants</li> <li>ChatGPT 4.0-Generated code reviews</li> <li>Complete interview guide</li> <li>Member checking feedback data</li> </ol>
ALSPAC peer reviewed publications 1989-2015
<p>List of peer reviewed publications generated from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) data from 1989 to the end of 2015.</p>
Assessing and predicting the quality of peer reviews: a text mining approach
<p>Dataset</p>
Peer review files HYSPLIT data
<p>HYSPLIT simulations of ash deposition in Southeast Asia. Dataset for peer review of 'Volcanic Influence on Holocene Hydroclimate in Southeast Asia'.</p> <p>These files should be downloaded and opened in the browser as described in the supplementary text. </p>
A Short CONSORT Checklist for Peer Reviewers to Improve the Reporting of Randomised Controlled Trials Published
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT05820971. IPD Sharing: YES. Countries: 2. Publications: 1.
A Short SPIRIT Checklist for Peer Reviewers to Improve the Reporting Quality in Published Articles (SPIRIT-PR)
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT05820984. IPD Sharing: YES. Countries: 1. Publications: 1.
Evaluating the Impact of Assessing During Peer Review the CONSORT Checklist Submitted by Authors
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT03751878. IPD Sharing: NO. Countries: 1. Publications: 1.
Data from: Gender diversity of editorial boards and gender differences in the peer review process at six journals of ecology and evolution.
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Exploring media representation of the exotic pet trade, with a focus on welfare: Taxonomic, framing, and language biases in peer-reviewed publications and newspaper articles
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
"MiRoR13-P2 Journal editors' perspectives on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in biomedical journals: a qualitative study"
<p>This dataset is related to the publication "Journal editors' perspectives on roles and tasks of peer reviewers in biomedical journals: a qualitative study"</p>
Retraction Watch, Research Integrity, and Peer Review
<p><strong>Episode Summary:</strong></p> <p>In this episode we are discussing a range of topics relating to the good and bad of research practices with our interview guest Ivan Oransky the co-founder of Retraction Watch. We will discuss the issue of paper retractions, and their wider implications for research integrity, peer review, and science journalism. </p> <p><strong>Links: </strong></p> <p><a href="https://retractionwatch.com/">Retraction Watch</a></p> <p><a href="https://grants.nih.gov/policy/research_integrity/what-is.htm">Research Integrity Information</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/05/upshot/peer-review-the-worst-way-to-judge-research-except-for-all-the-others.html">Article on Issues in Peer Review</a></p> <p><strong>Quotes: </strong></p> <p>'I don't think it is great to cover single studies every week'</p>
On the agreement between bibliometrics and peer review. Supplementary materials
<p>Data sets and supplementary materials of the paper "On the agreement between bibliometrics and peer review: evidence from the Italian research assessment exercises" </p> <p><strong>DS1_EXP1 and EXP2 data.xls:</strong> raw anonymized data of the two experiments EXP1 and EXP2.</p> <p><strong>DS2_Avg_score_vs_perc_peer_review_VQR1_VQR2</strong>. average score and proportion of peer review evaluations at a scientific field level. Data from the two Italian research assessment exercises VQR1 and VQR2. </p> <p><strong>SM1_Fig_1_EXP1_geom_count_peer_vs_bibliometrics_all.png</strong>: joint distribution of peer review and bibliometrics evaluations for EXP1. R_ggplot: count overlapping points (proportion). All research areas.</p> <p><strong>SM1_Fig_2_EXP1_geom_count_peer_vs_bibliometrics_area.png: </strong> joint distribution of peer review and bibliometrics evaluations for EXP1. R_ggplot: count overlapping points (proportion). Separate plot for each research area.</p> <p><strong>SM1_Fig_3_EXP2_geom_count_peer_vs_bibliometrics_all.png</strong>: joint distribution of peer review and bibliometrics evaluations for EXP2. All scientific areas. R_ggplot: count overlapping points (proportion). All areas.</p> <p><strong>SM1_Fig_4_EXP2_geom_count_peer_vs_bibliometrics_area.png: </strong> joint distribution of peer review and bibliometrics evaluations for EXP2. R_ggplot: count overlapping points (proportion). Separate plot for each research area.</p> <p><strong>SM2_Fig_1_VQR1_plot_avg_score_percentage_peer.png</strong>: Average score and percentage of articles evaluated by peer review for<br> research fields in VQR1. All areas.</p> <p><strong>SM2_Fig_2_VQR1_avg_score_vs_percentage_peer</strong>:<strong> </strong>Regression lines for average score and percentage of articles evaluated by peer review for different research areas. VQR1.</p> <p><strong>SM2_Fig_3_VQR2_plot_avg_score_percentage_peer.png</strong>: Average score and percentage of articles evaluated by peer review for<br> research fields in VQR2. All areas.</p> <p><strong>SM2_Fig_4_VQR2_avg_score_vs_percentage_peer</strong>:<strong> </strong>Regression lines for average score and percentage of articles evaluated by peer review for different research areas. VQR2.</p> <p><strong>SM_supplementary_table_linear_weights.pdf</strong>: Cohen's kappa estimates with linear weights for EXP1 and EXP2. 4 tables.</p>
Data from: Editor and reviewer gender influence the peer review process but not peer review outcomes at an ecology journal
Lack of diversity on editorial boards might generate disparities in editorial and peer review that contribute to gender and geographic disparities in scholarly publishing. We use a comprehensive data set of the peer review process for all papers submitted to the journal Functional Ecology from January 2004 to June 2014 to examine how gender, seniority and geographic location of editors and reviewers influence reviewer recruitment and scores given to papers by reviewers. The gender ratio of editors for Functional Ecology was majority male, but the proportion of female editors increased over time. The gender ratio of selected reviewers was also highly majority male, but the proportion of women selected as reviewers increased over the 10 years largely because the number of women on the editorial board increased and female editors invited more female reviewers than did male editors. Male editors selected <25% female reviewers even in the year they selected the most women, but female editors consistently selected ˜30–35% female reviewers. Editors also over-selected reviewers from their own geographic locality. Women invited to review were less likely to respond to review invitations, but more likely to accept if they responded. Women invited to review responded to the invitation similarly regardless of whether the editor inviting them was male or female, but men invited to review were both less likely to respond and more likely to decline if the editor was female. Review scores given to papers did not differ between male and female reviewers, and final decisions (proportion of papers rejected) did not differ between male and female editors. The proportion of women among selected reviewers decreased with editor seniority when the editor was male but increased with editor seniority when the editor was female. Thus, the gender ratio of selected reviewers differed little between early-career male and female editors but differed a lot between late-career (more senior) male and female editors. Individuals invited to review were less likely to agree to review if the editor was more senior. Editor gender, seniority and geographic location affect who is invited to review for Functional Ecology, and how invitees respond to review invitations, but not the final outcome of the peer review process. To increase diversity of reviewer populations, journals should increase gender, age and geographic diversity of their editorial boards.
Data from: Gender differences in peer review outcomes and manuscript impact at six journals of ecology and evolution
The productivity and performance of men is generally rated more highly than that of women in controlled experiments, suggesting conscious or unconscious gender biases in assessment. The degree to which editors and reviewers of scholarly journals exhibit gender biases that influence outcomes of the peer review process remains uncertain due to substantial variation among studies. We test whether gender predicts the outcomes of editorial and peer review for >23,000 research manuscripts submitted to six journals in ecology and evolution from 2010 to 2015. Papers with female and male first authors were equally likely to be sent for peer review. However, papers with female first authors obtained, on average, slightly worse peer review scores and were more likely to be rejected after peer review, though the difference varied among journals. These gender differences appear to be partly due to differences in authorial roles. Papers for the which the first author deferred corresponding authorship to a coauthor (which women do more often than men) obtained significantly worse peer review scores and were less likely to get positive editorial decisions. Gender differences in corresponding authorship explained some of gender differences in peer review scores and positive editorial decisions. In contrast to these observations on submitted manuscripts, gender differences in peer review outcomes were observed in a survey of >12,000 published manuscripts; women reported similar rates of rejection (from a prior journal) before eventual publication. After publication, papers with female authors were cited less often than those with male authors, though the differences are very small (~2%). Our data do not allow us to test hypotheses about mechanisms underlying the gender discrepancies we observed, but strongly support the conclusion that papers authored by women have lower acceptance rates and are less well cited than are papers authored by men in ecology.
shawngraham/insta-dead: release for peer review
<p>Initial data, figures, and scripts, as submitted to the journal.</p>
Data and code for peer review - MEE-24-11-799
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Which peer reviewers voluntarily reveal their identity to authors? Insights into the consequences of open-identities peer review
<p>Identifying reviewers is argued to improve quality and fairness of peer review, but is generally disfavored by reviewers. To gain some insight into the factors that influence when reviewers are willing to have their identity revealed, I examine which reviewers voluntarily reveal their identities to authors at the journal <i>Functional Ecology</i>, at which reviewer identities are confidential unless reviewers sign their comments to authors. 5.6% of reviewers signed their comments to authors. This proportion increased slightly over time, from 4.4% in 2003-2005 to 6.7% in 2013-2015. Male reviewers were 1.8 times more likely to sign their comments to authors than were female reviewers, and this difference persisted over time. Few reviewers signed all of their reviews; reviewers were more likely to sign their reviews when their rating of the manuscript was more positive, and papers that had at least one signed review were more likely to be invited for revision. Signed reviews were, on average, longer and recommended more references to authors. My analyses cannot distinguish cause-and-effect for the patterns observed, but my results suggest that "open identities" review, in which reviewers are not permitted to be anonymous, will likely reduce the degree to which reviewers are critical in their assessment of manuscripts and will differentially affect recruitment of male and female reviewers, negatively affecting the diversity of reviewers recruited by journals.</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.