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.
27
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
27 results for “Austrian Science Fund (FWF)”
Austrian Science Fund (FWF) Publication Cost Data 2014
<p>Following 2013 (http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.988754), the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) makes its publication costs spent in 2014 (esp. for Open Access) publically available.</p> <p>The dataset includes payments for publications of authors funded by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) via following programmes:</p> <p>"Peer-Reviewed Publications": https://www.fwf.ac.at/en/research-funding/fwf-programmes/peer-reviewed-publications/</p> <p>"Stand-Alone Publications": https://www.fwf.ac.at/en/research-funding/fwf-programmes/stand-alone-publications/</p> <p>In addition to 2013, this dataset includes also costs for Open Access books and other venues.</p>
Austrian Science Fund (FWF) Open Access Compliance Monitoring 2019
<p><strong>I. Executive summary</strong></p> <p>The Austrian Science Fund (FWF), which is Austria's main funding organisation for basic research, encourages and helps all project leaders and project staff members to make their peer-reviewed research results freely available on the Internet. Any exceptions must be clearly indicated and justified. For projects that started after 1 January 2015, open access has been compulsory for all peer-reviewed publications. All principal investigators in FWF-funded projects are obliged to submit a final report within three months of completing their projects.</p> <p>In 2019 all in all 565 final reports were submitted to the FWF, 44 out of them couldn't report publications by now. The publications and other data mentioned in those reports are archived and analysed by the FWF. This report examines the state of compliance with open access requirements on the basis of final project reports submitted in the year 2019.</p> <p>Main findings:</p> <p>-A total of 9.353 publications were listed in the final project reports submitted in 2019.</p> <p>-Of those publications, 7.326 were conclusively identified as peer-reviewed.</p> <p>-Regarding compliance with the FWF's Open Access Policy, the analysis shows that 89% of the peer-reviewed publications that are listed in the submitted final reports of FWF projects in 2019 are openly accessible (2015: 83%, 2016: 92%, 2017: 90%, 2018: 92%).</p> <p>-The most frequently chosen option is hybrid open access (40%). The share of old open access is 19%, the share of green open access 22% and other open access 8%.</p> <p>-The majority of peer-reviewed publications submitted are journal articles (91%), 91% of which are openly accessible.</p> <p>-The lowest rate of compliance with the FWF's Open Access Policy can be found in editions, contributions to edited volumes and monographs (42%).</p> <p>-Although open access is not compulsory for non peer-reviewed publications, 43% of those publications are freely available through the internet.</p> <p>-The absolute number of publications listed in final reports in 2019 includes 565 publications that are mentioned several times in different projects; however, those repetitions do not ultimately affect the relative share of open access publications (89%).</p> <p><strong>II. Bias</strong></p> <p>Half of the publications were entered in the FWF’s database manually and with utmost care when the final project reports were received. Nevertheless, it is not possible to rule out minor errors entirely. The other half has been submitted to the FWF via a research documentation system (provided by ©Researchfish) in which FWF-funded researchers are able to enter and update their research data on an ongoing basis. The last check of the open access status was performed in January 2020. In some cases, the embargo period may have already expired, and publications labelled other open access in the FWF’s database may now be accessible through green open access.</p> <p>Whenever the status "peer-reviewed" could not be clearly identified according to FWF guidelines, the publications were classified as non peer-reviewed.</p> <p>Openly available non peer-reviewed publications were entered as 'openly available'.</p> <p> </p>
Austrian Science Fund (FWF) Publication Cost Data 2015
<p>Following the approach for the datasets in 2013 (http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.988754) and 2014 (https://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1378610.v14), the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) is making the publication costs spent in 2015 (esp. for Open Access) publically available.</p> <p>The dataset includes payments for publications of authors funded by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) via following programmes:</p> <p>"Peer-Reviewed Publications": https://www.fwf.ac.at/en/research-funding/fwf-programmes/peer-reviewed-publications/</p> <p>"Stand-Alone Publications": https://www.fwf.ac.at/en/research-funding/fwf-programmes/stand-alone-publications/</p>
Austrian Science Fund (FWF) Publication Cost Data 2013
<p>Following the Wellcome Trust, the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) makes its publication costs spent in 2013 (esp. for Open Access) publically available.</p> <p>An aggregated version of this dataset is already published in FWF's annual report 2013 (p. 86), http://www.fwf.ac.at/de/public_relations/publikationen/jahresberichte/fwf-jahresbericht-2013.pdf</p> <p>The dataset includes payments for journal articles of authors funded by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) via the program ‘Peer Reviewed Publications’, http://www.fwf.ac.at/en/projects/peer-reviewed_publications.html</p> <p>The dataset distinguishes between three publication cost categories:</p> <p>(1) Gold Open Access and (2) Hybrid Open Access are defined by FWF's Open Access Policy, see: http://www.fwf.ac.at/en/public_relations/oai/index.html</p> <p>(3) ‘Other publication costs’ are defined as additional costs to subscription prices charged by subscription journals (i.e. submission fees, colour charges, page charges, figure charges, table charges, supplemental charges).</p> <p>Based on this data and the data of Web of Science (WoS), we roughly estimate for 2013 a share for Gold and Hybrid OA of around 33% of all articles (incl. reviews) that result from projects supported by the FWF and which are listed in Web of Science.</p> <p>The analysis of this dataset together with the report “Developing an Effective Market for Open Access Article Processing Charges” (http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/About-us/Policy/Spotlight-issues/Open-access/Guides/WTP054773.htm) will lead to an adaption of the FWF’s Open Access policy within the next months. One model, for example, for a cost-neutral Hybrid Open Access is already in place: http://ioppublishing.org/newsDetails/Austria-open-acces</p>
Austrian Science Fund (FWF) Open Access Compliance Monitoring 2022
<p>I. Executive summary</p> <p>The Austrian Science Fund (FWF), which is Austria's main funding organisation for basic research, encourages and helps all project leaders and project staff members to make their peer-reviewed research results freely available on the Internet. Any exceptions must be clearly indicated and justified. For projects that started after 1 January 2015, open access has been compulsory for all peer-reviewed publications. All principal investigators in FWF-funded projects are obliged to submit a final report within four months of completing their projects.</p> <p>In 2022, a total of 575 final reports were submitted to the FWF, 38 of which could not report any publications so far. The publications and other data mentioned in those reports are archived and analysed by the FWF. This report examines the state of compliance with open access requirements for peer-reviewed publications on the basis of final project reports submitted in the year 2022.</p> <p>Main findings:</p> <p>-A total of 8,312 publications were listed in the final project reports submitted in 2022.</p> <p>-Of those publications, 6,631 were conclusively identified as peer-reviewed.</p> <p>-Regarding compliance with the FWF's Open Access Policy, the analysis shows that 85% of the peer-reviewed publications listed in the final project reports submitted in 2022 were openly accessible (2015: 83%, 2016: 92%, 2017: 90%, 2018: 92%, 2019: 89%, 2020: 84%, 2021 82%).</p> <p>-The most frequently chosen option was hybrid open access (36%). The share of gold open access was 29%, the share of green open access 20%, and no open access 15%.</p> <p>-The majority of peer-reviewed publications submitted were journal articles (85%), 86% of which were openly accessible.</p> <p>-The lowest rate of compliance with the FWF's Open Access Policy could be found in editions, contributions to edited volumes, and monographs 41%).</p> <p>-The absolute number of publications listed in final reports in 2022 included 354 publications that were mentioned several times in different projects; however, those repetitions did not affect the relative share of open access publications (85%).</p> <p>II. Bias</p> <p>All publications were submitted to the FWF via a research documentation system (provided by ©Researchfish), in which FWF-funded researchers are able to enter and update their research data on an ongoing basis. The last check of the open access status was performed in March 2023. In some cases, the embargo period may have already expired, and publications labelled ‘closed’ in the FWF’s database may now be accessible through green open access.</p> <p>Whenever the status ‘peer-reviewed’ could not be clearly identified according to the FWF’s guidelines, the publications were classified as non-peer reviewed.</p> <p>Openly available non-peer reviewed publications were entered as 'openly available’.</p>
Austrian Science Fund (FWF) funding statistics 2009-2019
<p>Compilation of funding statistics from FWF's annual reports as longitudinal data from 2009-2019</p>
Austrian Science Fund (FWF) funding statistics 2009-2014
<p>Compilation of funding statistics from FWF's annual reports as longitudinal data from 2009-2014.</p>
Austrian Science Fund (FWF) funding statistics 2009-2015
<p>Compilation of funding statistics from FWF's annual reports as longitudinal data from 2009-2015.</p>
OAPEN usage report for open access books funded by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) 2014 - 2016
<p>For several years now, the Stand-Alone Publications Programme by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) has been funding the production and simultaneous open-access publication of academic books, see: <a href="http://www.fwf.ac.at/en/research-funding/fwf-programmes/stand-alone-publications/">http://www.fwf.ac.at/en/research-funding/fwf-programmes/stand-alone-publications/</a></p> <p>All FWF-funded books are accessible free of charge in the FWF E-Book Library <a href="https://e-book.fwf.ac.at/">https://e-book.fwf.ac.at/</a> and in the OAPEN Library <a href="http://www.oapen.org/search">http://www.oapen.org/search</a>. </p> <p>The OAPEN Library’s annual data on book usage for 2014 to 2016 shows that the number of archived open-access books is rising steadily, as is the number of downloads per book.</p>
Austrian Science Fund (FWF) Open Access Compliance Monitoring 2016
<p><strong>I. Executive summary</strong></p> <p>The Austrian Science Fund (FWF), which is Austria's main funding organisation for basic research, encourages and helps all project leaders and project staff members to make their peer-reviewed research results freely available on the Internet. Since 1 January 2016, open access has been mandatory for all peer-reviewed publications listed in final reports on FWF-funded projects. Any exceptions must be clearly indicated and justified. For projects that started after 1 January 2015, open access has been compulsory for all peer-reviewed publications.</p> <p>All principal investigators in FWF-funded projects are obliged to submit a final report within three months of completing their projects.</p> <p>The publications and other data mentioned in those reports are archived and analysed by the FWF. This report examines the state of compliance with open access requirements on the basis of final project reports submitted in the year 2016.</p> <p>Main findings:</p> <ul> <li>A total of 6,994 publications were listed in the final project reports submitted in 2016.</li> <li>Of those publications, 5,146 were conclusively identified as peer-reviewed.</li> <li>Regarding compliance with the FWF's Open Access Policy, the report shows that 92% of the peer-reviewed publications that arose from FWF projects in 2016 are openly accessible (2015: 83%).</li> <li>The most frequently chosen option is hybrid open access (40%). Since last year's report, the use of green open access has increased by 3%, other open access by 5%, and gold open access by 2%.</li> <li>The majority of peer-reviewed publications submitted are journal articles, 93% of which are openly accessible.</li> <li>The lowest rate of compliance with the FWF's Open Access Policy can be found in editions, contributions to edited volumes and monographs (58%).</li> <li>Although open access is not compulsory, 48% of non peer-reviewed publications are freely available through the internet.</li> <li>The absolute number of publications listed in final reports in 2016 includes 321 publications that are mentioned several times in different projects; however, those repetitions do not ultimately affect the relative share of open access publications (92%).</li> </ul> <p><strong>II. Bias</strong></p> <p>All publications were entered in the FWF’s database manually and with the utmost care when the final project reports were received. Nevertheless, it is not possible to rule out minor errors entirely. Moreover, some systematic problems need to be solved in the future; the FWF is currently preparing to implement a research information system in which FWF-funded researchers will be able to enter and update their research data on an ongoing basis.</p> <ul> <li>Due to the amount of data involved, it was not possible to check the current open access status of all publications twice. The last check was performed in January 2017.</li> <li>In some cases, the embargo period may have expired after submission, and publications labelled "Other open access" in the FWF’s database may now be accessible through green open access.</li> <li>Whenever the status "peer-reviewed" could not be clearly identified according to FWF guidelines, the publications were classified as non peer-reviewed.</li> </ul>
Austrian Science Fund (FWF) Publication Cost Data 2016
<p>Following the approach for the datasets in 2013 (http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.988754), 2014 (https://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1378610.v14) and 2015 (https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.3180166), the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) is making the publication costs spent in 2016 (esp. for Open Access) publically available.</p> <p>The dataset includes payments for publications of authors funded by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) via following programmes:</p> <p>Peer-Reviewed Publications: https://www.fwf.ac.at/en/research-funding/fwf-programmes/peer-reviewed-publications/</p> <p>Stand-Alone Publications: https://www.fwf.ac.at/en/research-funding/fwf-programmes/stand-alone-publications/</p>
Austrian Science Fund (FWF) Publication Cost Data 2021
<p>The following dataset provides information on the publication costs spent by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) via the programmes Peer-reviewed Publications (<a href="https://www.fwf.ac.at/en/research-funding/fwf-programmes/peer-reviewed-publications/">https://www.fwf.ac.at/en/research-funding/fwf-programmes/peer-reviewed-publications/</a>) and Stand-Alone Publications (<a href="https://www.fwf.ac.at/en/research-funding/fwf-programmes/stand-alone-publications/">https://www.fwf.ac.at/en/research-funding/fwf-programmes/stand-alone-publications/</a>) in 2021.</p>
Austrian Science Fund (FWF) Open Access Compliance Monitoring 2021
<p><strong>I. Executive summary</strong></p> <p>The Austrian Science Fund (FWF), which is Austria's main funding organisation for basic research, encourages and helps all project leaders and project staff members to make their peer-reviewed research results freely available on the Internet. Any exceptions must be clearly indicated and justified. For projects that started after 1 January 2015, open access has been compulsory for all peer-reviewed publications. All principal investigators in FWF-funded projects are obliged to submit a final report within four months of completing their projects.</p> <p>In 2021, a total of 584 final reports were submitted to the FWF, 48 of which could not report any publications so far. The publications and other data mentioned in those reports are archived and analysed by the FWF. This report examines the state of compliance with open access requirements for peer-reviewed publications on the basis of final project reports submitted in the year 2021.</p> <p>Main findings:</p> <p>-A total of 7,025 publications were listed in the final project reports submitted in 2021.</p> <p>-Of those publications, 5,735 were conclusively identified as peer-reviewed.</p> <p>-Regarding compliance with the FWF's Open Access Policy, the analysis shows that 82% of the peer-reviewed publications listed in the final project reports submitted in 2021 were openly accessible (2015: 83%, 2016: 92%, 2017: 90%, 2018: 92%, 2019: 89%, 2020: 84%).</p> <p>-The most frequently chosen option was hybrid open access (39%). The share of gold open access was 23%, the share of green open access 20%, and no open access 18%.</p> <p>-The majority of peer-reviewed publications submitted were journal articles (85%), 86% of which were openly accessible.</p> <p>-The lowest rate of compliance with the FWF's Open Access Policy could be found in editions, contributions to edited volumes, and monographs (50%).</p> <p>-The absolute number of publications listed in final reports in 2021 included 403 publications that were mentioned several times in different projects; however, those repetitions did not ultimately affect the relative share of open access publications (81%).</p> <p>II. Bias</p> <p>Most of the publications were submitted to the FWF via a research documentation system (provided by ©Researchfish), in which FWF-funded researchers are able to enter and update their research data on an ongoing basis. The last check of the open access status was performed in March 2022. In some cases, the embargo period may have already expired, and publications labelled ‘closed’ in the FWF’s database may now be accessible through green open access.</p> <p>Whenever the status ‘peer-reviewed’ could not be clearly identified according to the FWF’s guidelines, the publications were classified as non-peer reviewed.</p> <p>Openly available non-peer reviewed publications were entered as 'openly available’.</p>
Austrian Science Fund (FWF) Publication Cost Data 2017
<p><br> Following the approach for the datasets in 2013 (<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.988754">http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.988754</a>), 2014 (<a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1378610.v14">https://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1378610.v14</a>), 2015 (<a href="https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.3180166">https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.3180166</a>) and 2016 (<a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.810596">https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.810596</a>), the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) is making the publication costs spent in 2017 (esp. for Open Access) publically available.</p> <p>The dataset includes payments for publications of authors funded by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) via following programmes:</p> <p>Peer-Reviewed Publications: <a href="https://www.fwf.ac.at/en/research-funding/fwf-programmes/peer-reviewed-publications/">https://www.fwf.ac.at/en/research-funding/fwf-programmes/peer-reviewed-publications/</a></p> <p>Stand-Alone Publications: <a href="https://www.fwf.ac.at/en/research-funding/fwf-programmes/stand-alone-publications/">https://www.fwf.ac.at/en/research-funding/fwf-programmes/stand-alone-publications/</a></p>
Austrian Science Fund (FWF) Open Access Compliance Monitoring 2017
<p><strong>I. Executive summary</strong></p> <p>The Austrian Science Fund (FWF), which is Austria's main funding organisation for basic research, encourages and helps all project leaders and project staff members to make their peer-reviewed research results freely available on the Internet. Since 1 January 2016, open access has been mandatory for all peer-reviewed publications listed in final reports on FWF-funded projects. Any exceptions must be clearly indicated and justified. For projects that started after 1 January 2015, open access has been compulsory for all peer-reviewed publications.</p> <p>All principal investigators in FWF-funded projects are obliged to submit a final report within three months of completing their projects. In 2017 all in all 608 final reports were submitted to the FWF, 42 out of them couldn't report publications by now.</p> <p>The publications and other data mentioned in those reports are archived and analysed by the FWF. This report examines the state of compliance with open access requirements on the basis of final project reports submitted in the year 2017.</p> <p>Main findings:</p> <ul> <li>A total of 8.398 publications were listed in the final project reports submitted in 2017.</li> <li>Of those publications, 6.439 were conclusively identified as peer-reviewed.</li> <li>Regarding compliance with the FWF's Open Access Policy, the report shows that 90% of the peer-reviewed publications that arose from submitted final reports of FWF projects in 2017 are openly accessible (2015: 83%, 2016: 92%).</li> <li>The most frequently chosen option is hybrid open access (41%). Since last year's report, the use of green open access has declined by 5% green open access and by 2 % gold open access. Other open access has increased by 4%, and hybrid open access by 1%.</li> <li>The majority of peer-reviewed publications submitted are journal articles, 91% of which are openly accessible.</li> <li>The lowest rate of compliance with the FWF's Open Access Policy can be found in editions, contributions to edited volumes and monographs (66%) an increase by 8% since last year's report.</li> <li>Although open access is not compulsory, 51% of non peer-reviewed publications are freely available through the internet.</li> <li>The absolute number of publications listed in final reports in 2017 includes 715 publications that are mentioned several times in different projects; however, those repetitions do not ultimately affect the relative share of open access publications (90%).</li> <li>56% of all peer-reviewed publications without open access originate from the "Special Research Programmes" (SFB). Since these reserach networks have a long duration, the open access policy of the FWF often does not yet apply to them.</li> </ul> <p><strong>II. Bias</strong></p> <p>All publications were entered in the FWF’s database manually and with the utmost care when the final project reports were received. Nevertheless, it is not possible to rule out minor errors entirely. Moreover, some systematic problems need to be solved in the future; the FWF is currently preparing to implement a research information system in which FWF-funded researchers will be able to enter and update their research data on an ongoing basis.</p> <ul> <li>Due to the amount of data involved, it was not possible to check the current open access status of all publications twice. The last check was performed in January 2018.</li> <li>In some cases, the embargo period may have expired after submission, and publications labelled "Other open access" in the FWF’s database may now be accessible through green open access.</li> </ul> <p>Whenever the status "peer-reviewed" could not be clearly identified according to FWF guidelines, the publications were classified as non peer-reviewed.</p>
Austrian Science Fund (FWF) funding statistics 2009-2017
<p>Compilation of funding statistics from FWF's annual reports as longitudinal data from 2009-2017.</p>
Austrian Science Fund (FWF) funding statistics 2009-2018
<p>Compilation of funding statistics from FWF's annual reports as longitudinal data from 2009-2018</p>
Austrian Science Fund (FWF) Open Access Compliance Monitoring 2020
<p><strong>I. Executive summary</strong></p> <p>The Austrian Science Fund (FWF), which is Austria's main funding organisation for basic research, encourages and helps all project leaders and project staff members to make their peer-reviewed research results freely available on the Internet. Any exceptions must be clearly indicated and justified. For projects that started after 1 January 2015, open access has been compulsory for all peer-reviewed publications. All principal investigators in FWF-funded projects are obliged to submit a final report within four months of completing their projects.</p> <p>In 2020, a total of 483 final reports were submitted to the FWF, 32 of which could not report any publications so far. The publications and other data mentioned in those reports are archived and analysed by the FWF. This report examines the state of compliance with open access requirements for peer-reviewed publications on the basis of final project reports submitted in the year 2020.</p> <p>2020 shows a significant decline in the number of publications compared to 2019. This decline can be explained by the fact that 15% fewer final project reports were received as a result of weaker funding years in the mid-2010s as well as an increased shift of final report submissions from 2020 to later points in time (‘corona effect’). Especially in the programmes with the highest number of publications (Doctoral Programmes, Special Research Programmes) as well as in programmes with many projects (Stand-Alone Projects, International Projects), there were fewer final project reports submitted, which has a massive impact on the total number of publications. It must be taken into account that the method (recording the number of publications via final project reports) is a look into the past, as the final project reports show publications that were produced in previous years during the project term. The publication activity in relation to the year of publication itself is relatively constant according to databases such as Dimensions. Due to the automation of the monitoring processes and the introduction of Plan S of cOAlition S, the category of ‘Other open access’ (self-archiving in a non-maintained repository, homepage, or archiving of preprints), which was previously determined manually, is no longer taken into account, and thus the open access share of peer-reviewed publications has decreased compared to previous years.</p> <p>Main findings:</p> <p>-A total of 6,196 publications were listed in the final project reports submitted in 2020.</p> <p>-Of those publications, 4,809 were conclusively identified as peer-reviewed.</p> <p>-Regarding compliance with the FWF's Open Access Policy, the analysis shows that 84% of the peer-reviewed publications listed in the final project reports submitted in 2020 were openly accessible (2015: 83%, 2016: 92%, 2017: 90%, 2018: 92%, 2019: 89%).</p> <p>-The most frequently chosen option was hybrid open access (40%). The share of old open access was 21%, the share of green open access 23%, and no open access 16%.</p> <p>-The majority of peer-reviewed publications submitted were journal articles (89%), 88% of which were openly accessible.</p> <p>-The lowest rate of compliance with the FWF's Open Access Policy could be found in editions, contributions to edited volumes, and monographs (38%).</p> <p>-The absolute number of publications listed in final reports in 2020 included 362 publications that were mentioned several times in different projects; however, those repetitions did not ultimately affect the relative share of open access publications (83%).</p> <p><strong>II. Bias</strong></p> <p>Most of the publications were submitted to the FWF via a research documentation system (provided by ©Researchfish), in which FWF-funded researchers are able to enter and update their research data on an ongoing basis. The last check of the open access status was performed in March 2020. In some cases, the embargo period may have already expired, and publications labelled ‘no open access’ in the FWF’s database may now be accessible through green open access.</p> <p>Whenever the status ‘peer-reviewed’ could not be clearly identified according to the FWF’s guidelines, the publications were classified as non-peer reviewed.</p> <p>Openly available non-peer reviewed publications were entered as 'openly available’.</p> <p> </p>
Austrian Science Fund (FWF) Publication Cost Data 2020
<p>The following data set provides information on the publication costs spent by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) via the programmes Peer-reviewed Publications (<a href="https://www.fwf.ac.at/en/research-funding/fwf-programmes/peer-reviewed-publications/">https://www.fwf.ac.at/en/research-funding/fwf-programmes/peer-reviewed-publications/</a>) and Stand-Alone Publications (<a href="https://www.fwf.ac.at/en/research-funding/fwf-programmes/stand-alone-publications/">https://www.fwf.ac.at/en/research-funding/fwf-programmes/stand-alone-publications/</a>) in 2020.</p>
Austrian Science Fund (FWF) Publication Cost Data 2022
<p>The following dataset provides information on the publication costs spent by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) via the programmes Peer-reviewed Publications (<a href="https://www.fwf.ac.at/en/research-funding/fwf-programmes/peer-reviewed-publications/">https://www.fwf.ac.at/en/research-funding/fwf-programmes/peer-reviewed-publications/</a>) and Stand-Alone Publications (<a href="https://www.fwf.ac.at/en/research-funding/fwf-programmes/stand-alone-publications/">https://www.fwf.ac.at/en/research-funding/fwf-programmes/stand-alone-publications/</a>) in 2022.</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.