Find research datasets worth reusing

opencc-by-nc-nd-4.0Sep 2024View details →

Research software funding policies and programs: Results from an international survey (Dataset)

Research software is increasingly recognized as critical infrastructure in contemporary science. Research software spans a broad spectrum, including source code files, algorithms, scripts, computational workflows, and executables, all created for or during research. Research funders have developed programs, initiatives and policies to bolster research software’s role. However, there has been no empirical study of how research funders prioritize support for research software. This information is needed to clarify where current funder support is concentrated and where strategic gaps may exist. Here, we present data from a survey of research software funders (n=36) from around the world. The survey explored these funders’ priorities, finding a strong emphasis on developing skills, software sustainability, embedding open science, building community and collaboration, advancing research software funding, increasing software visibility and use, innovation and security.  <h1>Methods</h1> This research was carried out using a survey combining qualitative and quantitative items. The survey was designed to investigate how research software funders support research software’s sustainability and impact. The study was reviewed and given an exempt determination by the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Institutional Review Board (no. 24374). <h2>Survey design</h2> The survey designed for this study began by collecting profile information, including institutional affiliation and job title. The survey gathered information about respondents’ organization’s initiatives, policies, or programs to support research software. The range of questions yielded too much data for one article. In this article, we focus exclusively on the results generated via an open-ended question asking about the top priorities for the respondents’ organizations’ support for research software: “What are your organization's top priorities related to research software?”. Four open-response text boxes were provided for respondents to indicate and list these priorities. <h2>Sampling</h2> This survey was aimed at international research funders, including governmental and non-governmental (e.g., philanthropic) funders. A list of contacts to invite to participate in this survey was created based on participation in the Research Software Association (ReSA) and responsibility for research software funding known to the authors. This initial list of people was refined, with removals based on individuals having moved to unrelated professional roles or being unavailable long-term, for example, due to personal issues. The final, refined contact list comprised 71 people. After removing individuals when a member of their organization already provided a complete answer or when the person turned out to no longer be working on a relevant topic or to be otherwise unavailable (total of n=30), 41 people remained. Five of these individuals did not complete the survey, while 36 people (representing 30 research funding organizations) did, yielding a response rate of 87.8%. Fully completed survey responses were not required for individuals to be retained in the sample, resulting in varied sample bases across survey questions. The sample includes research funders in North and South America, Europe, Oceania and Asia, but over-represents North America and European funder representatives. Some participating funders cover a broad spectrum of disciplines, while others focus on a particular domain such as social science, health, environment, physical sciences or humanities. <table> <tbody> <tr> <td> Continent </td> <td> Count </td> </tr> <tr> <td> North America </td> <td> 15 </td> </tr> <tr> <td> South America </td> <td> 4 </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Europe </td> <td> 12 </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Oceania </td> <td> 3 </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Asia </td> <td> 1 </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> The respondents represented research funders supported by governmental (n=26), philanthropic (n=6) and corporate (n=1) resources. Respondents’ job titles span the following categories: Senior Leadership and Executive, such as a Vice President of Strategy; Program and Project Management, such as Senior Program Manager; Planning and Business Development; Scientific, Technical and IT, such as Scientific Information Lead. Most respondents 72.7% (n=24) answered ‘Yes’ to the question, “Has your organization established any policies, initiatives or programs aimed at supporting research software?”, while 18.2% (n=6) said ‘No’ and 9.1% (n=3) ‘Unsure’. <h2>Data collection, management and analysis</h2> Data collection took place from December 2023 to May 2024. The mean completion time for the detailed survey was 28 minutes and 13 seconds. The data were cleaned and prepared for analysis by removing any identifiable respondent details. The data analysis process followed a standard thematic qualitative analysis approach (e.g., Jensen & Laurie, 2016). This involved first identifying themes and organizing the data accordingly. Dimensions of each theme were identified where relevant. Then data extracts were selected from the survey responses associated with each theme and theme dimension.  <h1>Additional data: Evolving funding strategies for research software: Insights from an international survey of research funders</h1> Data were uploaded in December 2024 to support another paper drawing on the same overall survey data. This one is entitled: 'Evolving funding strategies for research software: Insights from an international survey of research funders'. The survey data for this upload were generated using the following survey items. <table> <tbody><tr> <td> Variable </td> <td> Survey Item </td> <td> Response Options </td> </tr> </tbody><tbody> <tr> <td> Policies, initiatives, or programs aimed at supporting research software </td> <td> “Has your organization established any policies, initiatives or programs aimed at supporting research software?” (This could include grants, fellowships, funding policies, conference funding, or other kinds of support aimed at bolstering the sustainability or impact of research software) </td> <td> Yes, No, Unsure (If ‘Yes’, then the next question was asked) </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Number of policies or programs to be reported </td> <td> “How many of your organization’s policies, initiatives or programs to support research software are you familiar with?” </td> <td> 1, 2, 3, 4, 5+ </td> </tr> <tr> <td> The following questions were asked for each policy, initiative, or program </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Name of policy or program </td> <td> “Please name the policy, initiative or program (starting with the one you are most familiar with):” </td> <td> [Text line] </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Status of policy or program </td> <td> “What is the status of this policy, initiative or program?” </td> <td> Completed/closed, In progress/open, Other (please specify) </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Link(s)/description </td> <td> “Please provide link(s) to the policy, initiative or program, upload or email to [the researcher’s contact details].” “Link(s)/Description:” (If there is no documentation available, please describe it here:) </td> <td> [Textarea], [File upload] </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Type of policy or program </td> <td> “Which of the following best describes the policy, initiative or program you named above?” </td> <td> <a name="_Hlk180534652"></a>Funding program, Policy that affects funding decision-making or outcomes (funder side), Policy that affects funding applicants or recipients (applicant/awardee side), Other (please specify) </td> </tr> <tr> <td> If ‘Funding program’ was selected in the previous question, then the next question was asked </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Type of funding </td> <td> “Which of the following best describes the available funding?” </td> <td> Funding that includes research software, Dedicated funding only for research software, Other (please specify) </td> </tr> <tr> <td> For all categories of policy, initiative or program, the following questions were asked. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Problem(s) addressed </td> <td> “Please summarize the problem(s) this policy, initiative or program is aiming to address from your organization’s perspective:” </td> <td> [Text Area] </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Perceived level of program success </td> <td> “What factors have contributed to its success or lack of success?” </td> <td> Very successful, Successful, Neutral, Unsuccessful, Very unsuccessful, Not applicable / No opinion </td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

opencc-by-4.0Nov 2021View details →

The results of the survey, Shuryshkarsky District, YANAO

The results of a survey of the citizens of Shuryshkarsky district, YANAO (field research of the Arctic Research Center, Febriary - March, 2020)

opencc-zeroSep 2022View details →

Results of survey for selected parasites in Alaska brown bears (Ursus arctos)

To assess the prevalence of endo- and ectoparasites in Alaska brown bears (Ursus arctos), blood and fecal samples were collected during 2013 – 2016 from five locations: Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve (GAAR), Katmai National Park (KATM), Lake Clark National Park and Preserve (LACL), Yakutat Forelands (YAK), and Kodiak Island (KOD). Standard fecal centrifugal-flotation was used to screen for gastrointestinal parasites, molecular techniques were used to test blood for the presence of Bartonella and Babesia spp., and an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) was used to detect antibodies to Sarcoptes scabiei, a species of mite recently associated with mange in American black bears (Ursus americanus). From fecal flotations (n=160), we identified the following helminths: Uncinaria sp. (n=16, 10.0%), Baylisascaris sp. (n=5, 3.1%), Dibothriocephalus sp. (n=2, 1.2%), and taeniid-type eggs (n=1, 0.6%). Molecular screening for intraerythrocytic parasites (Babesia spp.) and intracellular bacteria (Bartonella spp.) was negative for all bears tested. We detected antibodies to S. scabiei in six out of 59 (10.2%) individuals. The data set contains 238 rows, each row representing a capture/sampling event for an individual bear. The location of the bear, month and year of sampling, and bear demographic information (ID number, sex, and age) are provided for each entry, as well as as which of the three tests (fecal flotation, Bartonella/Babesia PCR, Sarcoptes ELISA) were performed on samples collected during that capture event. Results are provided for each test when it was performed. For fecal flotation, there are columns for presence of the four detected parasite genera (1= present, 0 = absent), as well as a column for other fecal findings. For Bartonella/Babesia testing, a positive or negative result is provided when the tests were performed. For the Sarcoptes ELISA, results are provided based on bear positive controls and dog positive controls. Samples were reported as positive when they were positive when run with both positive controls.

opencc-by-4.0Apr 2024View details →

Survey results

This research was part of a PhD research named "Regularization methods that include experts’ domain knowledge for feature selection in a linear regression model" and research project "Methodological Framework For Efficient Energy Management By Intelligent Data Analytics" (Croatian Science Foundation project, IP-2016-06-8350). For the purpose of including experts' domain knowledge in a feature selection method proposed in PhD thesis, four experts were examined during April 2022.  The experts were people with experience in energy efficiency and construction. They were asked to express their opinion on the influence of each input feature on the output feature. <ul> <li>input features:  25 characteristics of buildings such as the use and purpose of the building, structural and energy characteristics, heating and cooling characteristics, geographical and other (input characteristics).</li> <li>output feature: annual energy cost of public sector buildings in the Republic of Croatia.</li> </ul> The expert's opinion is represented by an ordinal scale with 4 possible categories:   <ul> <li>1 - No influence, </li> <li>2 - Weak influence, </li> <li>3 - Medium influence, </li> <li>4 - Strong influence.</li> </ul> The repository consists of: <ul> <li>Description_of_features.xlsx - table that contains names and descriptions of features used in the research.</li> <li>Survey_results.xslx - table that contains the results of experts' opinions on the influence of each input feature on the output feature. </li> </ul>

opencc-by-4.0Jul 2024View details →

Automated Assessment of Mobile Programming Courses: Leveraging GitHub Classroom and Flutter for Enhanced Student Outcomes - Survey complete results

Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.

opennotspecifiedMar 2019View details →

FIGURES 7–11 in The Plecoptera of Panama. III. The genus Anacroneuria (Plecoptera: Perlidae) in Panama's national parks: 2017 survey results

FIGURES 7–11. Anacroneuria bandido sp. n., male. 7. Head and pronotum. 8. Male sternum 8 with hammer. 9. Aedeagus, venral. 10. Aedeagus, dorsal. 11. Aedeagus, lateral.

opencc-by-4.0Aug 2021View details →

RELAX ESEM 2021 DR User Study Survey Results Shared Document

Dataset referenced in the ESEM 2021 paper titled "Study of the Utility of Text Classification Based SoftwareArchitecture Recovery Method RELAX for Maintenance"

opencc-by-4.0Dec 2022View details →

Sub-analysis results of pre- and post-intervention surveys of respondents who completed the educational lecture series

Sub-analysis results of pre- and post-intervention surveys of respondents who completed the educational lecture series.

opencc-by-4.0Dec 2022View details →

HCIV User Evaluation Survey Questions and Results

Survey questions and anonymous data collected from a user evaluation of the Human Centric Issue Visualiser (HCIV).

Agrylin Drug Use-Result Survey

ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT03625895. IPD Sharing: YES. Countries: 1. Publications: 0.

closedIPD-NOFeb 2026View details →

Clinical Trial to Survey Results of Flourish Vaginal Care System for Recurrent Bacterial Vaginosis

ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT03734523. IPD Sharing: NO. Countries: 1. Publications: 7.

Long Term Post Marketing Specified Drug Use Result Survey for Evolocumab in Japan

ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT02808403. IPD Sharing: YES. Countries: 1. Publications: 1.

NINLARO Capsules Drug Use-Results Survey (All-Case Surveillance) "Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma"

ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT03169361. IPD Sharing: YES. Countries: 1. Publications: 0.

ADYNOVATE Drug Use-Results Survey

ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT03169972. IPD Sharing: YES. Countries: 1. Publications: 0.

closedIPD-NOFeb 2026View details →

Specified Drug Use Results Survey of Ipragliflozin Treatment in type2 Diabetes Patients

ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT02479399. IPD Sharing: NO. Countries: 1. Publications: 5.

FIRAZYR General Drug Use-Results Survey (Japan)

ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT04057131. IPD Sharing: YES. Countries: 1. Publications: 0.

publicJun 2016View details →

Pay It Forward: Author Survey Results

Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.

publicSep 2016View details →

Data from: Requirements and access needs of patients with chronic disease to their hospital electronic health record: results of a cross-sectional questionnaire survey

Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.

publicApr 2018View details →

Data from: Prevalence of tobacco use and perceptions of student health professionals about cessation training: results from Global Health Professions Student Survey

Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.