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.
761
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
761 results for “data journal”
Correlation between the availability of supplementary material and raw research data in journals of the Agriculture Multidisciplinary area of WoS
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Gender differences in patterns of authorship do not affect peer review outcomes at an ecology journal
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Reporting quality of randomized controlled trial abstracts among high-impact general medical journals: a review and analysis
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Recruitment of reviewers is becoming harder at some journals: a test of the influence of reviewer fatigue at six journals in ecology and evolution
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Is it becoming harder to secure reviewers for peer review? A test with data from five ecology journals
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Author-suggested reviewers: gender differences and influences on the peer review process at an ecology journal
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Do urology journals enforce trial registration? A cross-sectional study of published trials
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Editor and reviewer gender influence the peer review process but not peer review outcomes at an ecology journal
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Women are underrepresented on the editorial boards of journals in environmental biology and natural resource management
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: A superlinear iteration method for calculation of finite length journal bearing's static equilibrium position
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Chinese obstetrics and gynecology journal club (COGJOC): A randomized controlled trial.
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Gender differences in peer review outcomes and manuscript impact at six journals of ecology and evolution
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Has open data arrived at the British Medical Journal (BMJ)? An observational study
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data for journal manuscript: Trait-based adaptability of Phragmites australis to the effects of soil water and salinity in the Yellow River Delta
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data archive for the journal article "Black Carbon Aerosols in the Lower Free Troposphere are Heavily Coated in Summer but Largely Uncoated in Winter at Jungfraujoch in the Swiss Alps"
<p>Data archive for figures accompanying the journal article "Black carbon aerosols in the lower free troposphere are heavily coated in summer but largely uncoated in winter at Jungfraujoch in the Swiss Alps". In 2020 this article was accepted for publication in the journal <em>Geophysical Research Letters</em>. Data are uploaded in the form of Igor Pro experiment files (.pxp).</p>
Data from: Imbalance in individual researcher's peer review activities quantified for four British Ecological Society Journals, 2003-2010
Researchers contribute to the scientific peer review system by providing reviews, and "withdraw" from it by submitting manuscripts that are subsequently reviewed. So far as we are aware, there has been no quantification of the balance of individual's contributions and withdrawals. We compared the number of reviews provided by individual researchers (i.e., their contribution) to the number required by their submissions (i.e. their withdrawals) in a large and anonymised database provided by the British Ecological Society. The database covered the Journal of Ecology, Journal of Animal Ecology, Journal of Applied Ecology, and Functional Ecology from 2003–2010. The majority of researchers (64%) did not have balanced contributions and withdrawals. Depending on assumptions, 12% to 44% contributed more than twice as much as required; 20% to 52% contributed less than half as much as required. Balance, or lack thereof, varied little in relation to the number of years a researcher had been active (reviewing or submitting). Researchers who contributed less than required did not lack the opportunity to review. Researchers who submitted more were more likely to accept invitations to review. These finding suggest overall that peer review of the four analysed journals is not in crisis, but only due to the favourable balance of over- and under-contributing researchers. These findings are limited to the four journals analysed, and therefore cannot include researcher's other peer review activities, which if included might change the proportions reported. Relatively low effort was required to assemble, check, and analyse the data. Broader analyses of individual researcher's peer review activities would contribute to greater quality, efficiency, and fairness in the peer review system.
Data from: Comparison of methodological quality of positive versus negative comparative studies published in Indian medical journals: a systematic review
Objectives: Published negative studies should have the same rigour of methodological quality as studies with positive findings. However, the methodological quality of negative versus positive studies is not known. The objective was to assess the reported methodological quality of positive versus negative studies published in Indian medical journals. Design: A systematic review (SR) was performed of all comparative studies published in Indian medical journals with a clinical science focus and impact factor >1 between 2011 and 2013. The methodological quality of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for observational studies. The results were considered positive if the primary outcome was statistically significant and negative otherwise. When the primary outcome was not specified, we used data on the first outcome reported in the history followed by the results section. Differences in various methodological quality domains between positive versus negative studies were assessed by Fisher's exact test. Results: Seven journals with 259 comparative studies were included in this SR. 24% (63/259) were RCTs, 24% (63/259) cohort studies, and 49% (128/259) case–control studies. 53% (137/259) of studies explicitly reported the primary outcome. Five studies did not report sufficient data to enable us to determine if results were positive or negative. Statistical significance was determined by p value in 78.3% (199/254), CI in 2.8% (7/254), both p value and CI in 11.8% (30/254), and only descriptive in 6.3% (16/254) of studies. The overall methodological quality was poor and no statistically significant differences between reporting of methodological quality were detected between studies with positive versus negative findings. Conclusions: There was no difference in the reported methodological quality of positive versus negative studies. However, the uneven reporting of positive versus negative studies (72% vs 28%) indicates a publication bias in Indian medical journals with an impact factor of >1.
Fig 3 from: Heller K-G, Hemp C (2024) Egg shape and size in Phaneropterinae and other Tettigonioidea (Orthoptera, Ensifera): A global review with new data. Journal of Orthoptera Research 33(1): 103-112. https://doi.org/10.3897/jor.33.116173
Fig 3 Dimensions of eggs in different phaneropterine tribes.
Figure 8 from: Boevé J-L, Marín-Armijos DS, Domínguez DF, Smith DR (2016) Sawflies (Hymenoptera: Argidae, Pergidae, Tenthredinidae) from southern Ecuador, with a new record for the country and some ecological data. Journal of Hymenoptera Research 51: 55-89. https://doi.org/10.3897/jhr.51.9830
Figure 8 - Decameria sp., male (P3915), body length 5.5 mm. a Dorsal view b ventral view.
Figure 34 from: Boevé J-L, Marín-Armijos DS, Domínguez DF, Smith DR (2016) Sawflies (Hymenoptera: Argidae, Pergidae, Tenthredinidae) from southern Ecuador, with a new record for the country and some ecological data. Journal of Hymenoptera Research 51: 55-89. https://doi.org/10.3897/jhr.51.9830
Figure 34 - Stromboceridea sp., male (P3951), body length 5.5 mm. a Dorsal view b ventral view.
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.