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.
5,061
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.7.1
Dataset results
5,061 results for “access”
The Choice is Yours? How Algorithm Bias Impacts Fairness and Accessibility of Knowledge
<p><strong>Episode Summary</strong></p> <p>In this episode we talked about 'almighty' algorithms with Carlos Castillo, Lorenzo Porcaro, Marzieh Karimihaghighi, David Solans, and Francesco Fabbri from the Web Science & Social Computing Research Group, and the department of Engineering in Information & Communication Technologies, in Universitat Pompeu Fabra in Barcelona. We discussed how bias can enter into algorithm systems, how bias is measured, and what systems are impacted by it. </p> <p><strong>Episode Links</strong></p> <p><a href="https://www.upf.edu/web/wssc/">Web Science and Social Computing Research Group</a></p> <ul> <li><a href="https://www.upf.edu/web/etic/entry/-/-/24095/adscripcion/carlos-alberto-alejandro-castillo">Carlos Castillo</a></li> <li><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/marzieh-karimihaghighi-706b5554/?originalSubdomain=ir">Marzieh Karimihaghighi</a></li> <li><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/david-solans-noguero-48269b85/?originalSubdomain=es">David Solans</a></li> <li><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/francesco-fabbri/?originalSubdomain=it">Francesco Fabbri</a></li> <li><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/lorenzo-porcaro-7a8792b1/?originalSubdomain=es">Lorenzo Porcaro</a></li> </ul>
Accession numbers in supplementary files
<p>This dataset contains database accession numbers which are automatically extracted from the supplementary files linked to open access full text biomedical articles.</p>
Support of Creative Commons Licenses in German disciplinary and institutional open access repositories
<p>Which of the following open content licenses can be chosen for the metadata description of the open access full-texts (apart from the deposit license)? n=81* </p> <p>* This survey question is part of the 2014 Census of Open Access Repositories in Germany, Austria and Switzerland, see: http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:11-100222687 For the research data see: http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10734 </p>
Shares of Open Access journals charging publication fees per country
<p>The files contains information on the ten countries that publish the most Open Access journals and the share of Open Access journals charging their authors with article processing charges (APCs) per country. The data was gathered at June 14, 2014 using the Directory of Open Access Journals web interface.</p>
Supplementary data for a study of Open Access Article Processing Charges - 2014
<p>Article Processing Charges levied by a set of Gold Open Access journals and hybrid journals in 2014, as collected from the publishers' web sites. Supplementary data to 10.2314/CERN/C26P.W9DT</p>
Policies of Research Institutions Requiring Open Access Depositing
<p>ROARMAP (http://roarmap.eprints.org) has been queried for policies of research institutions which require Open Access depositing of a version of all publications authored by their researchers. This data was needed to explain some of the outcomes of a study about the proportions of Open Access publishing in the European Research Area (ERA) as well as in Brazil, Canada, Japan and the USA (Archambault et al. 2014).</p>
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>
ROARMAP Open Access Policy data
<p>This data is a dump from ROARMAP [http://roarmap.eprints.org/] taken in June 2015.</p> <p>ROARMAP is the Registry of Open Access Repository Mandates and Policies, a searchable international registry charting the growth of open access mandates and policies adopted by universities, research institutions and research funders that require or request their researchers to provide open access to their peer-reviewed research article output by depositing it in an open access repository.</p> <p>A number of fields have been added including country names, repository urls, continent etc.</p> <p>The data is being used for a series of data visualisations [http://pasteur4oa-dataviz.okfn.org/] for the PATEUR4OA Project [http://pasteur4oa.eu/].</p> <p> </p> <p>PASTEUR4OA (Open Access Policy Alignment Strategies for European Union Research) aims to support the European Commission’s Recommendation to Member States of July 2012 that they develop and implement policies to ensure Open Access to all outputs from publicly-funded research. </p> <p>PASTEUR4OA will help develop and/or reinforce open access strategies and policies at the national level and facilitate their coordination among all Member States. It will build a network of centres of expertise in Member States that will develop a coordinated and collaborative programme of activities in support of policymaking at the national level under the direction of project partners.</p>
Umfrage: Von Open Access zu Open Science - Wissenschaftliche Kommunikation im Rahmen der Digitalisierung
<p>Wie verändert die Digitalisierung, wie wir auf wissenschaftliche Daten und Informationen zugreifen? Das war Thema in der Befragung im Rahmen der Promotion mit dem Titel: "Von Open Access zu Open Science: Zum Wandel von wissenschaftlicher Kommunikation". Sie bestand aus fünf Fragegruppen und ist wie folgt gegliedert: In der ersten Hälfte wurden die Teilnehmer/innen zu den Rahmenbedingungen Ihrer wissenschaftlichen Tätigkeit und zu Aspekten aus der wissenschaftlichen Leserperspektive befragt. In der zweiten Hälfte wurden die Befragten als Autor_in wissenschaftlicher Arbeiten und Daten angesprochen. Abschließend wurden einige freiwillige personenbezogene Angaben erhoben (die nur begrenzt Teil dieser Veröffentlichung sind).</p> <p>Bei dem Datensatz handelt es sich um anonymisierte Rohdaten der Befragung von 1.112 Personen (komplett ausgefüllt) aus dem deutschsprachigen Raum vom 18.8.2014 bis 18.01.2015.</p> <p>Weitere Informationen, einen PDF-Export aller Fragen/Antworten und die einzelnen weiteren anonymisierten Datensets finden Sie unter <a href="http://offene-doktorarbeit.de">http://offene-doktorarbeit.de</a></p> <p><strong>Update:</strong> Der Datensatz steht nun auch als geprüfte Version im GESIS Datorium vom Leibniz-Institut für Sozialwissenschaften zur Verfügung. Verbundene DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7802/74</p>
ROARMAP Open Access Policy data
<p>This data is a dump from ROARMAP [http://roarmap.eprints.org/] taken on 24th August 2015.</p> <p>ROARMAP is the Registry of Open Access Repository Mandates and Policies, a searchable international registry charting the growth of open access mandates and policies adopted by universities, research institutions and research funders that require or request their researchers to provide open access to their peer-reviewed research article output by depositing it in an open access repository.</p> <p>A number of fields have been added including country names, repository urls, continent etc.</p> <p>The data is being used for a series of data visualisations [http://pasteur4oa-dataviz.okfn.org/] for the PATEUR4OA Project [http://pasteur4oa.eu/].</p> <p> </p> <p>PASTEUR4OA (Open Access Policy Alignment Strategies for European Union Research) aims to support the European Commission’s Recommendation to Member States of July 2012 that they develop and implement policies to ensure Open Access to all outputs from publicly-funded research. </p> <p>PASTEUR4OA will help develop and/or reinforce open access strategies and policies at the national level and facilitate their coordination among all Member States. It will build a network of centres of expertise in Member States that will develop a coordinated and collaborative programme of activities in support of policymaking at the national level under the direction of project partners.</p>
Data on which institutions have access to a 1949 paper, paywalled at Taylor & Francis
<p>This is a dataset collecting various tweets from twitter, sent to @rmounce that report on whether various institutional library affiliations allow the user to download the full text of this paywalled article, that is otherwise only accessible via a payment of $38 + tax:<br /> <br /> <em>Hincks, W. D. 1949. IV.—systematic and synonymic notes on passalidæ (col.). Annals and Magazine of Natural History 2:56-64</em> http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00222934908653958</p> <p>From the data given, it appears that 81 institutions do not have subscription access to this paper. 11 institutions do have subscription access to this paper.</p> <p>Of the data from 41 UK-based institutions, only 3 have subscription access to this paper, namely: Cambridge, Oxford & Glasgow.</p> <p>Many thanks to all those who took part in this survey and/or spread it around twitter.<br /> <br /> A blog post was written on the basis of this informal survey data: <a href="http://rossmounce.co.uk/2015/09/16/who-actually-has-access-to-paywalled-research/">http://rossmounce.co.uk/2015/09/16/who-actually-has-access-to-paywalled-research/</a></p> <p> </p>
Total numbers and shares of Open Access Journals using Creative Commons Licenses as listed by the Directory of Open Access Journals
<p>This table provides information on the number and percentage of Open Access Journals listed by the Directory of Open Access Journals using a Creative Commons License. It identifies also the number and share of Journals using CC-Licenses that are compatible to the Open Definition.</p>
SNSF Open Access Monitoring: Data Publications 2013-2014
<p>This spreadsheet contains supplemental data to the report: "Open Access to Publications: SNSF monitoring report 2013 - 2015" (http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.584131), where it was found that at least 39% of publications out of SNSF funded grants are either Gold or Green Open Access.</p> <p>The initial data is based on the reported publications to the Swiss National Science Foundation via the grant administration system mySNF as of <strong>11. September 2015.</strong> This data is also available as open data on p3.snf.ch. Please be aware, that grant beneficiaries can update the metadata to the reported publications, including the Open Access status anytime during and after the end of a grant.</p> <p>Prior to validation, the actual publication date of publications with “in press/accepted” status was verified insofar as possible, and the details updated (approx. 3'000 publications). For further processing only publications with <strong>publication date 2013-2014</strong> were considered. Publications with the status “in press/accepted” status were excluded. Duplicates, i.e. publications cited as output for more than one project (approx. 2'500) are also filtered out. Where identifiable as such, pure abstracts (e.g. in journal supplements), working papers and pre-prints were also excluded.</p> <p><br> The basic goal was to locate a DOI for the publication and update the metadata. 78% of the 17'420 publications scrutinised have in the meantime been assigned a DOI. Using the DOI and the linked metadata available in CrossRef, unique searches could be performed in additional sources such as DOAJ, Pubmed and Pubmed Central, OpenAIRE (repository aggregator) and ADS (Astrophysics Data System). After the initial search for open access full text in these external sources, a search was made in Google Scholar using the DOI of the remaining publications still to be validated and links to any open access full text were extracted. Where even the Google Scholar search failed to turn up open access full text, the status was set to “closed access”. The OA status of 4'212 publications from the period 2013 to 2014 remained unclear, but it is more likely that they are in closed rather than open access mode.</p>
Data for "Open Access impact on citations: a case study"
<p>This dataset is a list of 347 papers published in 2010 and retrieved from the Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar. For each paper, the number of citations and the citation date(s) have been collected. If the full-text is available online, the date of "liberation" and the URL of the file have been retrieved as well. The objective was to assess the impact of Open access on citation rate and more particularly the impact before and after full-text "liberation".</p> <p> </p>
GenBank accession numbers
Explanation note: GenBank accession numbers of the sequences used in the multi-gene phylogenetic analysis.
An Open Access User Generated Video Dataset from 2016 Edinburgh Festival
<p>A user generated video dataset captured during the 2016 Edinburgh festival. The provided dataset was collected using a smart phone and is available with no post-processing. The videos mainly cover the Edinburgh streets and the festival atmosphere, and do not cover any performances. The dataset can be used for evaluation of various research tools, such as video quality assessment and enhancement.</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>
Introduction to Ancient Metagenomics Textbook (Edition 2025): Accessing Ancient Metagenomic Data
<p>Data and conda software environment file for the chapter 'Accessing Ancient Metagenomic<br> Data' of the SPAAM Community's textbook: Introduction to Ancient Metagenomics (https://www.spaam-community.org/intro-to-ancient-metagenomics-book).</p>
Factors influencing the likelihood of accessing healthcare during the COVID-19 pandemic in Ireland: lessons for the future
<p>This is an adapted version of the original National Household Survey - Wave 1 whereby existing variables were recoded to create new variables for the purpose of a new analysis.</p>
Fig. 3 in Repatriation of knowledge about insects and types through the DORSA virtual museum (Digital Orthoptera Specimen Access)
Fig. 3: Orthoptera (crickets and grasshoppers) collections in Germany – number of holotypes in major museums. A similar distributed pattern is observed for type material of other groups of organisms housed in German museums or research institutions.
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.