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.
6
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.7.1
Dataset results
6 results for “Academic Publishing”
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>
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>
Academic publishing requires linguistically inclusive policies
<p>Curated databases of the project "Academic publishing requires linguistically inclusive policies." </p> <p>"CuratedDatabase_Guidelines.txt" and "CuratedDatabase_Survey.txt" contain information about the linguistic policies of journals in biological sciences. Their information was collected from author guidelines and surveys to editors-in-chief, respectively. Additional information from the journal was extracted from the 2020 Journal Citation Reports (JCR).</p> <p><strong>Description, data type, and scoring options of the databases' fields (columns)</strong></p> <p>"CuratedDatabase_Guidelines.txt"'</p> <ul> <li>Collaborator: Anonymised identifier of collaborator who collected the information. Categorical.</li> <li>SurveyAnswer: Whether the editor-in-chief of the editor accepted the request to complete the survey. Categorical. YES, NO.</li> <li>Journal_JCR: Anonymised identifier of the journal name. Text.</li> <li>ImpactFactor_JCR: Impact Factor of the journal as per JCR. Numeric.</li> <li>OA_JCR: Percentage of Golden Open Access articles as per JCR. Numeric.</li> <li>Discipline_JCR: Discipline of the journal as per JCR. Categorical.</li> <li>CountryPublication_JCR: Country or region of publication of the journal as per JCR. Categorical.</li> <li>LanguageCountry: Language of the country where the journal is published. Categorical. English, Non-English.</li> <li>IssuesPerYear_JCR: Regularity as number of issues published by year as per JCR. Numeric.</li> <li>PublisherType: Business model of the journal's publisher. Categorical. Profit, Non-profit.</li> <li>SocietyJournal: Whether the journal is published on behalf of a scientific society. Categorical. 0 for NO, 1 for YES.</li> <li>Language: Languages in which the journal publish content. Text.</li> <li>RegionalGlobal: Whether the journal explicitly target to a global or regional audience. Categorical. Global, Regional.</li> <li>LinguisticDiversityEditors: Proportion of editors that are based in countries where English is not predominantly spoken. Numeric.</li> <li>EnglishEditingService: Type of English editing services that the journal provides to authors. Categorical. 0 for NONE, 1 for COMMERCIAL, 2 for FREE.</li> <li>AdditionalSupport: Additional support that journals offer to authors. Text.</li> <li>AdditionalLanguageGuidelines: Whether the author guidelines are available in languages other than English. Categorical. 0 for ONLY ENGLISH, 1 for ADDITIONAL LANGUAGES IN SOME SECTIONS, 2 for ADDITIONAL LANGUAGES.</li> <li>LanguageGuidelines: If apply, languages in which the author guidelines are available.</li> <li>LinguisticInclusivityStatement: Whether the journal clearly states that a paper will not be rejected solely by the perceived quality of English. Categorical. NO, YES.</li> <li>AdditionalLanguageManuscripts: Whether the journal publish entire manuscripts in languages other than English. Categorical. 0 for NO, 1 for YES.</li> <li>AdditionalLanguageAbstract: Whether the journal publish abstracts in languages other than English. Categorical. 0 for NO, 1 for YES.</li> <li>WhereSecondAbstract: If apply, the format in which the journal publish abstracts in languages other than English. Categorical.</li> <li>ProofReadingAL: If apply, whether the non-English content is proofread. Categorical. </li> <li>ReferencesAdditionalLanguage: Whether the journal publish references in languages other than English. Categorical. 0 for PROHIBITED/NO-MENTION, 1 for ALLOWED, 2 for ENCOURAGED.</li> <li>AutomaticTranslationTools: Whether the journal's website implement machine translation tools to read the manuscripts in languages other than English. 0 for NO, 1 for YES.</li> </ul> <p>"CuratedDatabase_Survey.txt"</p> <ul> <li>Journal_JCR: Anonymised identifier of the journal name. Text.</li> <li>ImpactFactor_JCR: Impact Factor of the journal as per JCR. Numeric.</li> <li>OA_JCR: Percentage of Golden Open Access articles as per JCR. Numeric.</li> <li>SocietyJournal: Whether the journal is published on behalf of a scientific society. Categorical. 0 for NO, 1 for YES.</li> <li>LinguisticDiversityEditors: Proportion of editors that are based in countries where English is not predominantly spoken. Numeric.</li> <li>AdditionalLanguageManuscripts: Whether the journal publish entire manuscripts in languages other than English. Categorical. 0 for NO, 1 for YES.</li> <li>EnglishEditingService: Type of English editing services that the journal provides to authors. Categorical. 0 for NONE, 1 for COMMERCIAL, 2 for FREE.</li> <li>ReferencesAdditionalLanguage: Whether the journal publish references in languages other than English. Categorical. 0 for PROHIBITED/NO-MENTION, 1 for ALLOWED, 2 for ENCOURAGED.</li> <li>InstructionsReviewers: Whether reviewers are instructed to avoid recommending the rejection manuscripts solely based on the perceived standard of English. 0 for NO, 1 for YES.</li> <li>InstructionsEditors: Whether editors are instructed to avoid rejecting manuscripts solely based on the perceived standard of English. 0 for NO, 1 for YES.</li> <li>YearStartLinguisticPolicies: For journals that publish content in languages other than English, the year in which those policies were implemented. Numeric. Values "1920" correspond to "Before 1920."</li> <li>AdditionalLanguageAbstract: Whether the journal publish abstracts in languages other than English. Categorical. 0 for NO, 1 for YES.</li> </ul>
Mutually dependent, yet highly asymmetric? Conversations about the relations and futures of Open Access academic publishing
<p>The research data in this dataset contains verbatim transcripts in PDF and ODT formats each (for reading and broader re-use purposes, respectively) as well as original audio recordings of two interviews. These semi-structured interviews form part of materials for a doctoral research project on recent developments in and possible implications of Open Access publishing models. Further information and full description of the research proposal are available online at http://hdl.handle.net/10760/29265</p>
Is There an Academic Elegancy in the Field of Library Science and Information Science? Are the Higher Impact Studies Citing the Studies Published in the Higher Impact Journals?
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data for article: Normative drift and self-correction and self-regulation in scholarly publishing: The case of scholarly books published by academics at Makerere University
<p>University academics face multiple pressures to publish. These pressures emanate from contexts with different, often competing, social norms which result in academics publishing for reasons that may run counter to accepted scientific practice. This paper asks what decisions are being taken by academics when it comes to their choice of scholarly book publisher. An analysis of books selected from more than 2,500 self-reported scholarly publications produced by academics at Makerere University in Uganda from 2011 to 2017, reveals that 31 scholarly books were published. Of these books, more than half (54%) were published by publishers that do not follow accepted scholarly publishing practice. Findings also show that there was a sharp decline in books published with suspect publishers in the second half of the seven-year period. The article discusses possible reasons for the selection of suspect publishers and considers four factors that may account for the observable decline: (1) a cyclical downturn; (2) improved research management and reporting; (3) explication of the norms of science; and (4) self-correction.</p> <p><strong>METHODS</strong></p> <p>The specific interest of this study is the publication of scholarly books by academics at Makerere University. </p> <p>The sources of the publications data were the lists of research outputs published in Makerere University’s annual reports from 2011 to 2017. Digital copies of the annual reports in PDF format were downloaded from the university’s website. Data were scraped from the annual report PDFs by exporting the publication lists from the PDFs to MSWord, removing unnecessary line breaks and spacing to create a single publication per line, and copying the publication lists into MSExcel for cleaning and analysis. Data were cleaned to remove (1) duplicate entries (e.g. identical publications in the same annual report or a publication listed as ‘under review’ or ‘in press’ in one year and listed again as a publication in a following year); (2) publications listed as ‘submitted’, unpublished masters and PhD theses, speeches, lectures, responses or retractions; (3) incomplete entries (e.g. no article, book or journal title); and (4) publications prior to 2011 (e.g. a 2008 publication listed in the 2011 annual report).</p> <p>The cleaned data were then coded for ‘year of publication’ (2011 to 2017 inclusive), ‘college’ (any of the colleges at Makerere University to which the authors were affiliated), and ‘publication type’ (book chapter, journal article, edited volume, working paper, policy brief, monograph, conference paper, textbook, report, popular article, poster presentation, newsletter, essay, catalogue, poetry, handbook). Books or parts of books (i.e. ‘book chapter’, ‘edited volume’, ‘monograph’, ‘textbook’, ‘catalogue’, ‘poetry’ and ‘handbook’) were further coded for ‘publisher’ (name); ‘publisher location’ (city, country as indicated on the imprint page of the publication); and ‘URL’ (online reference to publisher or publication). In some cases, publications were listed by type in the annual reports. Where publication lists were not presented in this way, indicators such as ‘journal of’, ‘volume’, ‘issue’ and ISSNs were used to identify journals; conference names, ‘proceedings of’, dates and cities were used to identify conference papers and presentations; ‘news’, ‘magazine’, ISSNs and the absence of ‘journal of’ were used to identify periodicals; and place of publication, publisher and ISBNs were used to identify books. Where these indicators were insufficient to determine a publication type, an online search was done to find the missing data. </p> <p>A limitation of the adopted method is that it relies on self-reporting by the university colleges and the list can therefore not be assumed to be comprehensive. Without knowledge of the reporting guidelines, it is also not possible to know whether all colleges and schools used the same criteria when selecting what to submit for reporting purposes. For example, some colleges may have decided to include working papers, policy briefs or papers presented at conferences, while others may have decided not to do so. </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.