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”
NEON Biorepository Wet Deposition Collection (repackaging of occurrences published by the NEON Biorepository Data Portal)
This collection contains wet deposition samples collected during precipitation events at NEON terrestrial and aquatic sites (NEON sample class: wdp_collection_in.chemSubsampleID). Samples are collected in a climate controlled wet deposition collector located at the tower top of terrestrial sites, and at the meteorologic tower of select aquatic sites. The automated assembly detects precipitation with an optical sensor and opens to collect wet deposition during all rain events. This allows for all types of precipitation to enter the glass collection bottles located within the enclosure. Once precipitation has ceased (as detected by the optical precipitation detector), the retractable lid closes until the next precipitation event is detected. Every two weeks samples are retrieved. A portion of the sample is filtered and sent to an analytical facility for analysis of major ions, pH, and conductivity. The remaining (unused) portion of the sample is not filtered and archived at 4 degrees Celsius for five years. Samples are stored in plastic Nalgene bottles, either PP or HDPE. See related links below for protocols and NEON related data products. Please note that associated datasets include important remarks and notes from the analysis laboratory about the condition of each sample (for example, if debris or contaminants were observed in the sample).
Ayres 2019: Quantitative Guidelines for Establishing and Operating Soil Archives (repackaging of occurrences published by the NEON Biorepository Data Portal)
Ayres, E. 2019. Quantitative Guidelines for Establishing and Operating Soil Archives. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 83(4): 973-981. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2019.02.0050
Pre- and post-publication citations to published arXiv preprints
<p>This dataset contains citations to published preprints, both before they are published and after they are published. Details of the data are provided in the <code>README.md</code>.</p>
Measurement data used in "Thermal and porosity properties of meteorites: A compilation of published data and new measurements".
<p>Measurement data used in “Thermal and porosity properties of meteorites: A compilation of published data and new measurements”. Includes the measurement data as a csv file, as well as 3D models and images of the measured meteorites as zip archives.</p>
Data for paper titled : Comparing Clothing-Mounted Sensors with Wearable Sensors for Movement Analysis and Activity Classification (published in Sensors (MDPI))
<p>Data for paper titled : Comparing Clothing-Mounted Sensors with Wearable Sensors for Movement Analysis and Activity Classification (published in Sensors (MDPI))</p>
Factors affecting altmetrics attention to scholarly publication in peer-reviewed journals published in Iran and Turkey
<p>The goal of this study was to trace the altmetric measures of peer-reviewed journals in two non-English speaking countries na,ely Iran and Turkey, in order to understand their correlation with some website structure and design determinants, as well as the subject and the full-text language of the journals.</p> <p> </p>
Computational Implementation of "Uncoupling electrokinetic flow solutions", published in Mathematical Geosciences
<p>This dataset includes Python and Mathematica scripts used to generate figures, and images used in the Mathematical Geosciences (MG) manuscript "Uncoupling Electrokinetic Flow Solutions" by Kuhlman and Malama (2020).</p> <p>Python scripts implementing eigenvalue uncoupling approach for differential equations governing 1D cylindrically symmetric electrokinetic flow problem (i.e., flow to a pumping well).</p> <ol> <li>mpmath python script (recombine-expint.py) implementing Theis "type curve" solution for an infinite domain (Figures 1-3 in MG manuscript)</li> <li>fipy python script (compare-via-fipy.py) and plotting script (plot_fipy_results.py) showing a finite-volume fully coupled solution for a similar finite domain for comparison against eigenvalue uncoupling approach (Figure 4 in MG manuscript). Also includes two shell scripts for driving python scripts for a variety of inputs.</li> </ol> <p>mathematica script (periodic-1D-steady-state-type-1.nb) for solving the algebra associated with the governing equations and plotting figures for analytical solution of periodically driven 1D solution (i.e., laboratory sinusoidal streaming potential and electroosmosis; Figures 4-9 in MG manuscript).</p> <p> </p>
Indonesia Regional Dataset - Data supplementary material for published papers of the QuaRCS lab
<p>Indonesia Regional Dataset - Data supplementary material for published papers of the QuaRCS lab</p>
Codes and Datasets for: 'The Largest Academic Publishers of Scholarly Journals: A Webscraping Approach'
<p>This set comprises:</p> <ul> <li>"<strong>count_publishers*</strong>": four R codes ("count_publishers*") that draw from <em>DOAJ</em>, <em>Publons</em>, <em>Scopus </em>and <em>SherpaRomeo</em> to extract scholarly publishers and the journal counts assigned to each publisher;</li> <li>"<strong>data*</strong>": two underlying data samples (from <em>DOAJ </em>and <em>Scopus</em>) - the two other samples are accessed via webscraping;</li> <li>"<strong>harmonize*</strong>": one text-file and one R-code for harmonizing publisher names;</li> <li>"<strong>alljournals.xlsx</strong>": the resulting list of scholarly publishers ordered by the highest number of journal counts assigned to them.</li> </ul>
Proportion of Open Access Papers Published in Peer-Reviewed Journals in Austria 2008-2013
<p>In 2014, Archambault et al. published a report which provided data about Open Access publishing for the years 2008-2013 for all countries of the European Research Area (ERA) as well as for Brazil, Canada, Japan and the USA. They differentiated not only by disciplines but also by three OA categories: Golden, Green and a residual category. For the dataset, the data for Austria and the whole area examined has been extracted and modified. The results show above-average rates for Austria in almost all disciplines.</p>
Extract Article Numbers by Publisher from ZORA
<p>Pentaho Transformation to Extract Metadata from EPrints XML-Export:</p> <ol> <li>Download/Install Pentaho Data Integration (Free community Edition) from: http://sourceforge.net/projects/pentaho/files/Data%20Integration/</li> <li>Download EP3-XML-Export from: http://www.zora.uzh.ch/cgi/search/archive/advanced?screen=Search&dataset=archive&type=article&date%2Fevent_end=2008-2015&_action_search=Search</li> <li>Move ZORA Export XML in the same directory as the Pentaho Script "Extract Article Number by Publisher ZORA.ktr"</li> <li>Rename Export File like "export_zora_XML_articles_01.01.2016.xml" or change the source name in the XML importstep "Get data from ZORA Export XML"</li> <li>Run Script which creates csv files with the results in the directory</li> </ol>
On the alignment of academic publishers’ embargos with H2020 requirements - Dataset
<p> </p> <p>-- ATTENTION PLEASE: RIGHT NOW THE DATASET IS UNDER INDEPENDENT DOUBLE CHECK TO TEST THE PRESENCE OF POSSIBLE ERRORS : PLEASE CONTACT THE AUTHOR FOR FURTHER INFO --</p> <p> </p> <p>This dataset refers to the breifing paper "On the alignment of academic publishers’ embargos with H2020 requirements" (https://nexacenter.org/nexacenterfiles/WoS-Romeo-analysis%20APS-final.pdf) published in the ambit of the European project Pasteur4OA (http://www.pasteur4oa.eu/).</p> <p> </p> <p>We wanted to understand how the publishing behaviour of EU researchers might be affected by the H2020 policy requirement to ensure Open Access (OA) to all articles from EU-funded projects within 6 months for science and engineering projects and 12 months for humanities and social science studies. Many publishers impose an embargo on ‘Green’ Open Access, where researchers deposit their articles in repositories, and these embargoes can be longer than the maximum permitted by the H2020 policy. The issue was whether researchers may have to alter their publishing behaviour or can they continue to publish in journals of their choice and still comply with the H2020 requirements. The following research questions were posed:</p> <p>1) What is the level of compliance of current publishers’ embargo policies with the H2020 requirements?<br> 2) How many journals are compliant with the H2020 requirements?</p> <p>The overall findings were that 90% of publishers used by EU researchers to publish their work and 94% of articles published by EU researchers are compatible with the H2020 Open Access policy requirements. Our conclusion is that only in a small minority of cases – 5-10% – would EU researchers’ normal publishing behaviour run contrary to H2020 rules. </p> <p> </p> <p>The zip file containing the data used, divided by access to the post-prints: </p> <p>- ok Open Access</p> <p>- no Open Access</p> <p>- unclear</p> <p>- OA with restrictions, but compliant to H2020</p> <p>- OA with restrictions, not compliant to H200</p> <p>- OA with restrictions, not clear</p> <p>The data model is available on the paper (https://nexacenter.org/nexacenterfiles/WoS-Romeo-analysis%20APS-final.pdf)</p>
Data set published in the IEEE TCAD article "Custom Multi-Cache Architectures for Heap-Manipulating Programs"
<p>This data set contains the results presented in the paper "Custom Multi-Cache Architectures for Heap-Manipulating Programs", published in the IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems (TCAD) in 2016.</p> <p>The data set consists of two parts, a Microsoft Excel file ('FPGA_implementation_results.xlsx') and a Matlab script ('plot_cache_performance.m', in combination with measurement results in an ascii file).</p> <p>The Excel file contains<br /> - the FPGA resource utilisation,<br /> - execution time measurements,<br /> - hit rate measurement of the multi-cache system,<br /> - and power measurements</p> <p>of different FPGA designs with different on-chip cache configurations. The resource utilisation is split into FPGA slices, LUTs, FlipFlops, DSP slices and block RAMs. Results in this file can be found in Table I-IV in the paper. Please refer to the paper for more information or email f.winterstein12@imperial.ac.uk.</p> <p>The Matlab script loads a data file ('cache_performance_N16384_L1') containing the hit rate measurements for different cache sizes of two direct-mapped cache with 64bit line width. The script produces a 3D 'skyscraper' plot, i.e. a grid of coloured bars. Each bar corresponds to the hit rate measured at the particular cache size configuration. The plot is saved in the file 'surf.pdf'. The script was used to produce Figure 4 of the paper. Please refer to the paper for more information or email f.winterstein12@imperial.ac.uk.</p> <p>In addition to this description, we include an author copy of the paper. Note that this is not the official version of the paper. Please cite the original IEEE TCAD article if you use the data.</p>
RDA Publishing Workflows_ Research Workflows (Responses)
<p>Responses to online questionnaire / call for examples from Research Data Alliance Working Group on Publishing Research Data Workflows.</p> <p>These relate to the article 'Connecting data publication to the research workflow: a preliminary analysis' by the same authors, submitted to the International Digital Curation Conference, 2017</p>
Supplementary material 9: Integrated legacy literature and prospective publishing dashboard: species-rank treatments from: Integrating and visualizing primary data from prospective and legacy taxonomic literature - Biodiversity Data Journal 3: e5063 (12 May 2015) https://doi.org/10.3897/BDJ.3.e5063
Dashboard charts summarizing content from 42 articles published either as open access articles published in Zootaxa or in Biodiversity Data Journal, containing treatments on spiders. This page shows data from species-rank treatments. When viewed using a browser (such as Google Chrome) with an internet connection, this page sends a series of queries to Plazi and integrates the results with the Google Charts API to produce 37 interactive dashboard charts.
Supplementary material 8: Integrated legacy literature and prospective publishing dashboard: all treatments from: Integrating and visualizing primary data from prospective and legacy taxonomic literature - Biodiversity Data Journal 3: e5063 (12 May 2015) https://doi.org/10.3897/BDJ.3.e5063
Dashboard charts summarizing content from 42 articles published either as open access articles published in Zootaxa or in Biodiversity Data Journal, containing treatments on spiders. This page shows data from all treatments. When viewed using a browser (such as Google Chrome) with an internet connection, this page sends a series of queries to Plazi and integrates the results with the Google Charts API to produce 37 interactive dashboard charts.
Supplementary material 7: Prospective publishing dashboard: species-rank treatments from: Integrating and visualizing primary data from prospective and legacy taxonomic literature - Biodiversity Data Journal 3: e5063 (12 May 2015) https://doi.org/10.3897/BDJ.3.e5063
Dashboard charts summarizing content from 5 articles published in Biodiversity Data Journal containing treatments on spiders. This page shows data from species-rank treatments. When viewed using a browser (such as Google Chrome) with an internet connection, this page sends a series of queries to Plazi and integrates the results with the Google Charts API to produce 37 dashboard charts.
Supplementary material 6: Prospective publishing dashboard: all treatments from: Integrating and visualizing primary data from prospective and legacy taxonomic literature - Biodiversity Data Journal 3: e5063 (12 May 2015) https://doi.org/10.3897/BDJ.3.e5063
Dashboard charts summarizing content from 5 articles published in Biodiversity Data Journal containing treatments on spiders. This page shows data from all treatments. When viewed using a browser (such as Google Chrome) with an internet connection, this page sends a series of queries to Plazi and integrates the results with the Google Charts API to produce 37 dashboard charts.
Data of "H2S dosimeter with controllable percolation threshold based on semi-conducting copper oxide thin films" published in JSSS 2017
<p>Raw data to the Paper "H2S dosimeter with controllable percolation threshold<br> based on semi-conducting copper oxide thin films" published in "Journal of Sensors and Sensor Systems".</p> <p>Acknowledgement and Funding in the txt.file</p>
Drivers and Barriers for Open Access Publishing - WoS 2016 Dataset
<p>Answers to a survey on gold Open Access run from July to October 2016. The dataset contains 15,235 unique responses from Web of Science published authors. This survey is part of a PhD thesis from the University of Granada in Spain. More details about the study can be found in the full text document, also available in Zenodo.</p> <p>Following are listed the questions related to the WoS 2016 dataset. Please note that countries with less than 40 answers are listed as "Other" in order to preserve anonymity.</p> <p><strong>* 1. How many years have you been employed in research?</strong></p> <ul> <li>Fewer than 5 years</li> <li>5-14 years</li> <li>15-24 years</li> <li>25 years or longer</li> </ul> <p>Many of the questions that follow concern Open Access publishing. For the purposes of this survey, an article is Open Access if its final, peer-reviewed, version is published online by a journal and is free of charge to all users without restrictions on access or use.</p> <p><strong>* 2. Do any journals in your research field publish Open Access articles?</strong></p> <ul> <li>Yes</li> <li>No</li> <li>I do not know</li> </ul> <p><strong>* 3. Do you think your research field benefits, or would benefit from journals that publish Open Access articles?</strong></p> <ul> <li>Yes</li> <li>No</li> <li>I have no opinion</li> <li>I do not care</li> </ul> <p><strong>* 4. How many peer reviewed research articles (Open Access or not Open Access) have you published in the last five years?</strong></p> <ul> <li>1-5</li> <li>6-10</li> <li>11-20</li> <li>21-50</li> <li>More than 50</li> </ul> <p><strong>* 5. What factors are important to you when selecting a journal to publish in?</strong></p> <p><strong>[Each factor may be rated “Extremely important”, “Important”, “Less important” or “Irrelevant”. The factors are presented in random order.]</strong></p> <ul> <li>Importance of the journal for academic promotion, tenure or assessment</li> <li>Recommendation of the journal by my colleagues</li> <li>Positive experience with publisher/editor(s) of the journal</li> <li>The journal is an Open Access journal</li> <li>Relevance of the journal for my community</li> <li>The journal fits the policy of my organisation</li> <li>Prestige/perceived quality of the journal</li> <li>Likelihood of article acceptance in the journal</li> <li>Absence of journal publication fees (e.g. submission charges, page charges, colour charges)</li> <li>Copyright policy of the journal</li> <li>Journal Impact Factor</li> <li>Speed of publication of the journal</li> </ul> <p><strong>6. Who usually decides which journals your articles are submitted to? (Choose more than one answer if applicable)</strong></p> <ul> <li>The decision is my own</li> <li>A collective decision is made with my fellow authors</li> <li>I am advised where to publish by a senior colleague</li> <li>The organisation that finances my research advises me where to publish</li> <li>Other (please specify) [Text box follows]</li> </ul> <p><strong>7. Approximately how many Open Access articles have you published in the last five years?</strong></p> <ul> <li>0</li> <li>1-5</li> <li>6-10</li> <li>More than 10</li> <li>I do not know</li> </ul> <p>[If the answer is “0”, the survey jumps to Q10.]</p> <p><strong>* 8. What publication fee was charged for the last Open Access article you published?</strong></p> <ul> <li>No charge</li> <li>Up to €250 ($275)</li> <li>€251-€500 ($275-$550)</li> <li>€501-€1000 ($551-$1100)</li> <li>€1001-€3000 ($1101-$3300)</li> <li>More than €3000 ($3300)</li> <li>I do not know</li> </ul> <p>[If the answer is “No charge or I don’t know” the survey jumps to Q20. ]</p> <p><strong>* 9. How was this publication fee covered? (Choose more than one answer if applicable)</strong></p> <ul> <li>My research funding includes money for paying such fees</li> <li>I used part of my research funding not specifically intended for paying such fees</li> <li>My institution paid the fees</li> <li>I paid the costs myself</li> <li>Other (please specify) [Text box follows]</li> </ul> <p><strong>* 10. How easy is it to obtain funding if needed for Open Access publishing from your institution or the organisation mainly responsible for financing your research?</strong></p> <ul> <li>Easy</li> <li>Difficult</li> <li>I have not used these sources</li> </ul> <p><strong>* 11. Listed below are a series of statements, both positive and negative, concerning Open Access publishing. Please indicate how strongly you agree/disagree with each statement.</strong></p> <p>[Each statement may be rated “Strongly agree”, “Agree”, “Neither agree nor disagree”, “Disagree” or “Strongly disagree”. The statements are presented in random order.]</p> <ul> <li>Researchers should retain the rights to their published work and allow it to be used by others</li> <li>Open Access publishing undermines the system of peer review</li> <li>Open Access publishing leads to an increase in the publication of poor quality research</li> <li>If authors pay publication fees to make their articles Open Access, there will be less money available for research</li> <li>It is not beneficial for the general public to have access to published scientific and medical articles</li> <li>Open Access unfairly penalises research-intensive institutions with large publication output by making them pay high costs for publication</li> <li>Publicly-funded research should be made available to be read and used without access barrier</li> <li>Open Access publishing is more cost-effective than subscription-based publishing and so will benefit public investment in research</li> <li>Articles that are available by Open Access are likely to be read and cited more often than those not Open Access</li> </ul> <p>This study and its questionnaire are based on the SOAP Project (http://project-soap.eu). An article describing the highlights of the SOAP Survey is available at: https://arxiv.org/abs/1101.5260. The dataset of the SOAP survey is available at http://bit.ly/gSmm71. A manual describing the SOAP dataset is available at http://bit.ly/gI8nc.</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.