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.
76
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.7.1
Dataset results
76 results for “data citation”
Data from: An origin of citations: Darwin's collaborators and their contributions to the Origin of Species
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: A stochastic generative model for citation networks among academic papers
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
PLOS ONE publication and citation data
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: The location of the citation: changing practices in how publications cite original data in the Dryad Digital Repository
While stakeholders in scholarly communication generally agree on the importance of data citation, there is not consensus on where those citations should be placed within the publication – particularly when the publication is citing original data. Recently, CrossRef and the Digital Curation Center (DCC) have recommended as a best practice that original data citations appear in the works cited sections of the article. In some fields, such as the life sciences, this contrasts with the common practice of only listing data identifier(s) within the article body (intratextually). We inquired whether data citation practice has been changing in light of the guidance from CrossRef and the DCC. We examined data citation practices from 2011 to 2014 in a corpus of 1,125 articles associated with original data in the Dryad Digital Repository. The percentage of articles that include no reference to the original data has declined each year, from 31% in 2011 to 15% in 2014. The percentage of articles that include data identifiers intratextually has grown from 69% to 83%, while the percentage that cite data in the works cited section has grown from 5% to 8%. If the proportions continue to grow at the current rate of 19-20% annually, the proportion of articles with data citations in the works cited section will not exceed 90% until 2030.
Data from: The assessment of science: the relative merits of post-publication review, the impact factor and the number of citations
Background: The assessment of scientific publications is an integral part of the scientific process. Here we investigate three methods of assessing the merit of a scientific paper: subjective post-publication peer review, the number of citations gained by a paper and the impact factor of the journal in which the article was published. Methodology/principle findings: We investigate these methods using two datasets in which subjective post-publication assessments of scientific publications have been made by experts. We find that there are moderate, but statistically significant, correlations between assessor scores, when two assessors have rated the same paper, and between assessor score and the number of citations a paper accrues. However, we show that assessor score depends strongly on the journal in which the paper is published, and that assessors tend to over-rate papers published in journals with high impact factors. If we control for this bias, we find that the correlation between assessor scores and between assessor score and the number of citations is weak, suggesting that scientists have little ability to judge either the intrinsic merit of a paper or its likely impact. We also show that the number of citations a paper receives is an extremely error-prone measure of scientific merit. Finally, we argue that the impact factor is likely to be a poor measure of merit, since it depends on subjective assessment. Conclusions: We conclude that the three measures of scientific merit considered here are poor; in particular subjective assessments are an error-prone, biased and expensive method by which to assess merit. We argue that the impact factor may be the most satisfactory of the methods we have considered, since it is a form of pre-publication review. However, we emphasise that it is likely to be a very error-prone measure of merit that is qualitative, not quantitative.
Data from: Does this title bug (Hemiptera) you? How to write a title that increases your citations
1. Scientists face an overwhelming number of peer-reviewed publications to read and must choose which to cite. Citation rate is used to measure a scientist's productivity and often affects hiring and promotion. Thus, as the number of scientific publications grows, competition for notice increases. A publication's title is the first step in the filtering process of a reader; the features of a title that are correlated with citation rate have not been explored for entomology journals. 2. We analyzed titles from two entomology and two ecology journals, documenting the presence of Latin names, common names, functional groups, geographic location, question marks, whether the title attempted humor or was divided into two parts, and the number of words in the title. 3. We found that using a Latin name in a title significantly decreases citations. Using Latin names in a title likely causes readers who are not immediately familiar with that name to skip the paper entirely when perusing a journal's table of contents, whereas titles that describe a general research area, without indicating the study organism, draw a wider audience and thus more citations. 4. We found that use of functional group names or geographic location in a title increased citations in entomology journals; however, these patterns were driven by a small portion of the data. Use of common names, presence of punctuation, whether the title attempted humor, and title length had no effect on citation rates. 5. Our findings may help authors to write better titles and therefore improve readership and citation rate.
Data from: Avoiding erroneous citations in ecological research: read before you apply
The Shannon–Wiener index is a popular nonparametric metric widely used in ecological research as a measure of species diversity. We used the Web of Science database to examine cases where papers published from 1990 to 2015 mislabelled this index. We provide detailed insights into causes potentially affecting use of the wrong name 'Weaver' instead of the correct 'Wiener'. Basic science serves as a fundamental information source for applied research, so we emphasize the effect of the type of research (applied or basic) on the incidence of the error. Biological research, especially applied studies, increasingly uses indices, even though some researchers have strongly criticized their use. Applied research papers had a higher frequency of the wrong index name than did basic research papers. The mislabeling frequency decreased in both categories over the 25-year period, although the decrease lagged in applied research. Moreover, the index use and mistake proportion differed by region and authors' countries of origin. Our study also provides insight into citation culture, and results suggest that almost 50% of authors have not actually read their cited sources. Applied research scientists in particular should be more cautious during manuscript preparation, carefully select sources from basic research, and read theoretical background articles before they apply the theories to their research. Moreover, theoretical ecologists should liaise with applied researchers and present their research for the broader scientific community. Researchers should point out known, often-repeated errors and phenomena not only in specialized books and journals but also in widely used and fundamental literature.
Data from: A falsification of the citation impediment in the taxonomic literature
Current science evaluation still relies on citation performance, despite criticisms of purely bibliometric research assessments. Biological taxonomy suffers from a drain of knowledge and manpower, with poor citation performance commonly held as one reason for this impediment. But is there really such a citation impediment in taxonomy? We compared the citation numbers of 306 taxonomic and 2291 non-taxonomic research articles (2009–2012) on mosses, orchids, ciliates, ants, and snakes, using Web of Science (WoS) and correcting for journal visibility. For three of the five taxa, significant differences were absent in citation numbers between taxonomic and non-taxonomic papers. This was also true for all taxa combined, although taxonomic papers received more citations than non-taxonomic ones. Our results show that, contrary to common belief, taxonomic contributions do not generally reduce a journal's citation performance and might even increase it. The scope of many journals rarely featuring taxonomy would allow editors to encourage a larger number of taxonomic submissions. Moreover, between 1993 and 2012, taxonomic publications accumulated faster than those from all biological fields. However, less than half of the taxonomic studies were published in journals in WoS. Thus, editors of highly visible journals inviting taxonomic contributions could benefit from taxonomy's strong momentum. The taxonomic output could increase even more than at its current growth rate if: (i) taxonomists currently publishing on other topics returned to taxonomy and (ii) non-taxonomists identifying the need for taxonomic acts started publishing these, possibly in collaboration with taxonomists. Finally, considering the high number of taxonomic papers attracted by the journal Zootaxa, we expect that the taxonomic community would indeed use increased chances of publishing in WoS indexed journals. We conclude that taxonomy's standing in the present citation-focused scientific landscape could easily improve—if the community becomes aware that there is no citation impediment in taxonomy.
Data from: A citation-based map of concepts in invasion biology
Invasion biology has been quickly expanding in the last decades, so that it is now metaphorically flooded with publications, concepts and hypotheses. Among experts, there is no clear consensus about the relationships between invasion concepts, and almost no one seems to have a good overview of the literature anymore. Similar observations can be made for other research fields. Science needs new navigation tools, so that researchers within and outside of a research field as well as science journalists, students, teachers, practitioners, policy-makers and others interested in the field can more easily understand its key ideas. Such navigation tools could, for example, be maps of the major concepts and hypotheses of a research field. Applying a bibliometric method, we created such maps for invasion biology. We analysed research papers of the last two decades citing at least two of 35 common invasion hypotheses. Co-citation analysis yields four distinct clusters of hypotheses. These clusters can describe the main directions in invasion biology and explain basic driving forces behind biological invasions. The method we outline here for invasion biology can be easily applied for other research fields.
Data From: Getting cited early: influence of visibility strategies, structure, and focal system on early citation rates
<p>Elucidating factors that contribute to citation rates of scientific articles can help scientists write manuscripts that have a stronger influence on their scientific field and wildlife management, and are accessible to a broad audience. Using a cohort of 778 articles published in <i>The Journal of Wildlife Management</i> from 2011–2015, we examined how visibility strategies (e.g., open access, increasing the Atlmetric Attention Score, self-citations), article structure, and focal system – all factors authors can predominantly control – influenced the accumulation of citations over various time frames within the first 5 years after publication, and the number of days until an article received its first citation. Visibility strategies influenced the number of citations accrued within the first year following publication. Our model explained less of the variation in number of citations received 1 year post-publication compared to 5 years post-publication (R<sup>2</sup> increased from 0.12 to 0.57 from years 1 to 5). Two years post-publication, factors associated with an article's visibility increased citation counts, and factors associated with article structure and focal system became important. Our analyses suggest citation rates, within wildlife ecology, are influenced by a number of controllable factors and that the influence of an article on science and management can be increased by authors pursuing a variety of visibility strategies.</p>
Datasets indexed in Data Citation Index in the Astronomy and Astrophysics category, 2010-2019
<p>The dataset comprises a single list of datasets exported from Data Citation Index (Web of Science, Clarivate Analytics) in the Astronomy and Astrophysics category, for the period 2010 - 2019, allowing to identify annual evolution, countries and institutions with higher productivity, main repositories and hosting platforms, use in publications indexed in Web of Science.</p>
Software Citation workshop panel session voting data
<p>This data was captured from an interactive panel discussion session at the Software Citation workshop at the British Library on Monday 13 June. The audience were asked to vote on a series of questions via <a href="https://mentimeter.com/">Mentimeter</a>, with the panel (and audience members) then discussing the results. Mentimeter allows export of raw voting data, so we are making this available to supplement the workshop outputs.</p> <p>There are two files:</p> <ul> <li><code>Software Citation Workshop Panel.pdf</code> is the slides presented at the workshop, which gives the questions used.</li> <li><code>Software-Citation-Workshop-Panel-Cleaned.xlsx</code> includes the (anonymous) raw data (with test data removed) and simple visualisations of the results.</li> </ul> <p>The format of the spreadsheet is <a href="https://help.mentimeter.com/after-the-presentation/export-results-to-excel">described on the Mentimeter help site</a> (<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20181010033759/https://help.mentimeter.com/after-the-presentation/export-results-to-excel">archived version on the Internet Archive</a>).</p>
Data from: How new concepts become universal scientific approaches – insights from citation network analysis of agent-based complex systems science
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: The assessment of science: the relative merits of post-publication review, the impact factor and the number of citations
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: A falsification of the citation impediment in the taxonomic literature
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Data reuse and the open data citation advantage
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: The location of the citation: changing practices in how publications cite original data in the Dryad Digital Repository
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Avoiding erroneous citations in ecological research: read before you apply
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: National citation patterns of NEJM, The Lancet, JAMA and The BMJ in the lay press: a quantitative content analysis
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: A citation-based map of concepts in invasion biology
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
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.