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.
88
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
88 results for “Data quality assessment”
Missouri reservoir water quality data from the Statewide Lake Assessment Program (SLAP), the Lakes of Missouri Volunteer Program (LMVP), and the Reservoir Observer Student Scientists (ROSS) program
This dataset of limnological water quality data continues from Jones et al., 2024, starting in 2017 until 2021. It is from 195 reservoirs, the majority of which are in the state of Missouri (MO) in the USA collected by the University of Missouri Limnology Lab. Water quality parameters analyzed in the MU Limnology Lab during this time frame include: areal pigment absorption coefficient, alkalinity, alpha (light utilization efficiency P-E parameter), ammonium (NH4), ammonium-debt, anatoxin, chlorophyll a (corrected and uncorrected for pheophytins), chloride, cylindrospermopsin, seston d13C, seston d15N, dissolved turbidity, dissolved organic carbon, Ek (light saturation P-E parameter), FVFM (maximum quantum yield of PSII for photochemistry), gross primary production, microcystin, nitrate & nitrite (NO3), nitrate-debt, particulate nitrogen, particulate phosphorus, phosphorus-debt, pheophytin, particulate carbon, particulate inorganic matter, particulate organic matter, phycocyanin (PHYCO), saxitoxin, Secchi disk depth, silica, soluble reactive phosphorus, total dissolved nitrogen (TDN), total dissolved phosphorus (TDP), total nitrogen (TN), total phosphorus (TP), total suspended solids (TSS), and urea. Most of the samples were collected during the summer months (May-September) when the reservoirs were thermally stratified, but a few were taken during the rest of the year (October-April). The majority of samples were taken at the deepest point in the reservoir directly up-reservoir of the dam. Sampling was conducted from a boat most of the time, but a few samples were taken from shorelines and drinking water treatment intake pipes. Most of the data come from the Statewide Lake Assessment Project (SLAP) and the Lakes of Missouri Volunteer Program (LMVP) funded by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources. This data represents duplicate or triplicate water samples collected from either the water surface, integrated over the depth of the epilimnion, or from discrete dep
Missouri reservoir water quality data (2022 - current) from the Statewide Lake Assessment Program (SLAP)
This dataset of limnological water quality data continues from North et al., 2025, starting in 2022 until present. The data is from reservoirs, primarily within the state of Missouri (MO) in the USA collected by the University of Missouri Limnology Lab. Water quality parameters analyzed in the MU Limnology Lab during this time frame include: ammonium (NH4), anatoxin, chlorophyll a (corrected and uncorrected for pheophytins), chloride, cylindrospermopsin, dissolved organic carbon, microcystin, nitrate & nitrite (NO3), pheophytin, particulate inorganic matter, particulate organic matter, phycocyanin, saxitoxin, Secchi disk depth, total dissolved nitrogen (TDN), total dissolved phosphorus (TDP), total nitrogen (TN), total phosphorus (TP), total suspended solids, and urea. Most of the samples were collected during the summer months (May-September) when the reservoirs were thermally stratified, but a few were taken during the rest of the year (October-April). The majority of samples were taken at the deepest point in the reservoir directly up-reservoir of the dam. Sampling was conducted from a boat most of the time, but a few samples were taken from shorelines and drinking water treatment intake pipes. The bulk of the data come from the Statewide Lake Assessment Project (SLAP), funded by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources. This data represents duplicate or triplicate water samples collected from either the water surface, integrated over the depth of the epilimnion, or from discrete depths in the hypolimnion.
Machine learning-based quality assessment of Antarctic margins salinity - code, data and figures
<p>The submission contains the data, functions and code needed to reproduce the figures in Sohail et al., 2025</p>
Adapting the Harmonized Data Quality Framework for Ontology Quality Assessment
<p>Ontologies play an important role in the representation, standardization, and integration of biomedical data, but are known to have data quality (DQ) issues. We aimed to understand if the Harmonized Data Quality Framework (HDQF), developed to standardize electronic health record DQ assessment strategies, could be used to improve ontology quality assessment. A novel set of 14 ontology checks was developed. These DQ checks were aligned to the HDQF and examined by HDQF developers. The ontology checks were evaluated using 11 Open Biomedical Ontology Foundry ontologies. 85.7% of the ontology checks were successfully aligned to at least 1 HDQF category. Accommodating the unmapped DQ checks (n=2), required modifying an original HDQF category and adding a new Data Dependency category. While all of the ontology checks were mapped to an HDQF category, not all HDQF categories were represented by an ontology check presenting opportunities to strategically develop new ontology checks. The HDQF is a valuable resource and this work demonstrates its ability to categorize ontology quality assessment strategies.</p>
Assessing Quality Variations in Early Career Researchers' Data Management Plans: Quantitative Data of the Content Analysis
<p>The data includes the numerical results of the ranking of the data management plans created during the Basics of Research Data Management (BRDM) courses worth 3 ECTS credits in the years 2020 - 2022. The ranking was made using the Finnish DMP Evaluation Guidance (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4729831). Additionally, the data contains the results of the analysis of the best RDM practices included in the DMPs.</p> <p>Note 1: The comma-separated coded CSV version 1 (5.2.2024) may not open correctly on MacOS. You can use the comma-delimited CSV file version 2 or 3 (31.5.2024).</p> <p>Note 2: Versions 1 (Quality_variations_in_ECRs_DMPs_data) and 3 (Quality_variations_in_ECRs_DMPs_data_ver_3) contain evaluations of DMPs, best practices for data management, as well as methods for data sharing, storage, and preservation. In version 2 (Quality_variations_in_ECRs_DMPs_data_ver_2), the methods for data sharing, storage, and preservation are missing.</p> <p>Data is related to the research article https://doi.org/10.2218/ijdc.v18i1.873.</p>
Dataset linking to the publication "An assessment of data sources, data quality and changes in national forest monitoring capacities in the Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005–2020"
<p>This dataset links to the study “An assessment of data sources, data quality and changes in national forest monitoring capacities in the Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005–2020”. This study is published in the journal “Environmental Research Letters” which can be found at <a href="https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/abd81b">https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/abd81b</a>. The dataset contains two files, one csv file, and one shape file. The two files contain the same data to meet the different users' needs. The dataset contains variables for assessing national forest monitoring data sources i.e., RS and/or NFI. Separate indicators namely 'Use of RS', and 'Use of NFI' were used to analyze the two data sources (RS and NFI). The description of each variable for these two indicators contained in the dataset is given in the Table below.</p> <table> <caption><strong>The description of the variables in the datase</strong>t <strong>for country capacity assessment</strong></caption> <tbody> <tr> <td><strong>Variables Name</strong></td> <td><strong>Description of the variables</strong></td> </tr> <tr> <td>Country</td> <td>Country</td> </tr> <tr> <td>ISO_A3_CODE</td> <td>ISO A3 Code for country</td> </tr> <tr> <td>ADM0_CODE</td> <td>ADMO Code for country</td> </tr> <tr> <td>CONTINENT</td> <td>Continent</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Region</td> <td>Region</td> </tr> <tr> <td>RSInd_05</td> <td>Use of remote sensing (RS) for forest area (change) monitoring 2005 Indicator</td> </tr> <tr> <td>RSSc_05</td> <td>Use of RS for forest area (change) monitoring 2005 Score</td> </tr> <tr> <td>RSInd _10</td> <td>Use of RS for forest area (change) monitoring 2010 Indicator</td> </tr> <tr> <td>RSSc _10</td> <td>Use of RS for forest area (change) monitoring 2010 Score</td> </tr> <tr> <td>RSInd_15</td> <td>Use of RS for forest area (change) monitoring 2015 Indicator</td> </tr> <tr> <td>RSSc _15</td> <td>Use of RS for forest area (change) monitoring 2015 Score</td> </tr> <tr> <td>RSInd_20</td> <td>Use of RS for forest area (change) monitoring 2020 Indicator</td> </tr> <tr> <td>RSSc _20</td> <td>Use of RS for forest area (change) monitoring 2020 Score</td> </tr> <tr> <td>DRS05_20</td> <td>Difference ‘use of RS’ 2005-2020</td> </tr> <tr> <td>NFIInd_05</td> <td>Use of national forest inventories (NFI) for forest monitoring 2005 Indicator</td> </tr> <tr> <td>NFISc_05</td> <td>Use of NFI for forest monitoring 2005 Score</td> </tr> <tr> <td>NFIInd _10</td> <td>Use of NFI for forest monitoring 2010 Indicator</td> </tr> <tr> <td>NFISc _10</td> <td>Use of NFI for forest monitoring 2010 Score</td> </tr> <tr> <td>NFIInd_15</td> <td>Use of NFI for forest monitoring 2015 Indicator</td> </tr> <tr> <td>NFISc _15</td> <td>Use of NFI for forest monitoring 2015 Score</td> </tr> <tr> <td>NFIInd_20</td> <td>Use of NFI for forest monitoring 2020 Indicator</td> </tr> <tr> <td>NFISc _20</td> <td>Use of NFI for forest monitoring 2020 Score</td> </tr> <tr> <td>DNFI05_20</td> <td>Difference ‘Use of NFI’ 2005-2020</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <p>Indicators and Scores in the above Table for showing the use of RS and NFI data for forest monitoring in Figure 1 (1a, 1b, and 2a, 2b) are related in the following way.</p> <table> <caption><strong>The indicator values and scores of the country capacity assessment</strong></caption> <tbody> <tr> <td><strong>Indicator</strong></td> <td><strong>Score</strong></td> </tr> <tr> <td>Low</td> <td>0</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Limited</td> <td>1</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Intermediate</td> <td>2</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Good</td> <td>3</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Very Good</td> <td>4</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <p>The capacity changes from 2005 to 2020 in Figure 1 (1c & 2c) are related in the following way.</p> <table> <caption><strong>The indicator values and levels for country capacity changes</strong></caption> <tbody> <tr> <td><strong>Capacity change values</strong></td> <td><strong>Capacity change levels</strong></td> </tr> <tr> <td>1,2,3,4</td> <td>Increase</td> </tr> <tr> <td>0</td> <td>No change</td> </tr> <tr> <td>-1,-2,-3,-4</td> <td>Decrease</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <p> </p>
Does size matter? Quality assessment of the size property in research data repositories
<p>Code and data for master's thesis on quality assessment of the size property in research data repositories. Research questions:</p> <ul> <li> <p> For what semantic concepts is the size property of repositories being used?</p> </li> <li> <p>What kind of quality factors can be detected when assessing the size property in a registry for research data repositories?</p> </li> <li> <p>Which automated and intellectual measures can improve the quality of the size property?</p> </li> </ul> <p>Method 1: Data analysis of size and related properties over all re3data records</p> <ul> <li> <p>Property selection</p> </li> <li> <p>Data extraction from API</p> </li> <li> <p>Data normalization</p> </li> <li> <p>Typing of patterns: mainly units of size</p> </li> <li> <p>Analysis: ~quantitative, mainly univariate, but also some multivariate / time</p> </li> </ul> <p>[Included in the publication:</p> <p>Method 2: Case Study of size in individual repositories</p> <ul> <li> <p>Repository selection: purposive sampling</p> </li> <li> <p>Data capture from GUI / API</p> </li> <li> <p>Analysis: ~qualitative]</p> </li> </ul>
FISHPASS ASSESSMENT PLAN LONG-TERM MONITORING OF HYDROLOGIC AND WATER QUALITY DATA
The Great Lakes Fishery Commissions’ (GLFC) FishPass project seeks to reconnect the waterscape for only desired species (i.e., selective passage) by integrating a multitude of existing and novel passage techniques and technologies. The probability of a fish passing through a sorting system is dependent on environmental conditions and a fish’s motivation ─ its internal state in relation to environmental stimuli. While fish decision making abilities introduce complexity to the sorting operations, they also provide an opportunity to exploit behavioral tendencies and abilities to achieve selective sorting. The FishPass Assessment Plan details a monitoring program aimed at quantifying fish movement and sorting capabilities associated with both individual mechanisms and integrated sorting systems. The results of the monitoring program will be used to inform future adjustments to the selection of techniques and technologies and their configuration to optimize passage of desirable species while blocking and/or removing undesirable species. A key component to the Assessment Plan is the long-term monitoring of abiotic variables in and around FishPass. This data set contains the hydrologic (e.g., river discharge, water level) and water quality data (e.g., temperature, specific conductivity, conductivity, and turbidity) collected at mostly static stations throughout the Boardman/Ottaway River. The dataset is updated annually. These data are collected until the initiation and/or substantial completion of the FishPass structure. Collection of this type of data are expected to continue after FishPass construction completion but modifications to the extent and location of monitoring stations are anticipated. As a result, a new dataset will be updated in the future containing all long term hydrologic and water quality monitoring post construction. R. Swanson, GLFC Assessment Biologist, is primarily responsible for maintaining the monitoring equipment, data retrieval, quality assuran
A Tool for Uncertainty Quantification in Reconstructing Sparse Water Quality Time Series Data to Assess Risk Metrics for Watershed Health and TMDL Analysis
<p>The uploaded file contains the input and output data which can be used to reproduce the results in the research article 'Uncertainty Quantification in Reconstruction of Sparse Water Quality Time Series: Implications for Watershed Health and Risk-Based TMDL Assessment'. Please refer to the file '<a href="https://zenodo.org/api/files/31b59cce-8eb2-4ee7-93aa-61474c6f6359/dst_2019_SJRW_TP_TDS.zip?versionId=2af2b54d-d5fb-4720-919d-de2e827595e2">dst_2019_SJRW_TP_TDS.zip'</a> for updated files..</p>
Data for the submitted paper by Yasunari et al., "Comprehensive Impact of Changing Siberian Wildfire Severities on Air Quality, Climate, and Economy: MIROC5 Global Climate Model's Sensitivity Assessments"
<p>The dataset contains some of the outputs from the global climate model experiments by MIROC5 on changing Siberian wildfire severities, the other data used in the paper (see READ_ME files on the data sources), the analyzed data, and the scripts for analyses, which were used in the following submitted paper. Note that this dataset also includes unused data for the paper:</p> <p><br>Yasunari, T. J., D. Narita, T. Takemura, S. Wakabayashi, and A. Takeshima, Comprehensive Impact of Changing Siberian Wildfire Severities on Air Quality, Climate, and Economy: MIROC5 Global Climate Model's Sensitivity Assessments, submitted.</p> <p>Please read the READ_ME files for detailed information in each directory (especially see the "about_figures_and_tables/" directory first). Because of their large sizes, the data were separated into three zipped files.</p>
Data for: D3.6 - Assessment of organoleptic and nutritional quality of fish products from the demonstration tests
<p>Data for: D3.6 - Assessment of organoleptic and nutritional quality of fish products from the demonstration tests </p> <p>https://ifishienci.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/iFishIENCi_D3.6.pdf</p> <p>Corresponding Author</p> <p>Name: Anneli Rost<br>ttz Bremerhaven, Germany<br>Address: Knurrhahnstraß 22-24 /Packhalle X 27572 Bremerhaven<br>Email: arost@ttz-bremerhaven.de</p>
Fig. 8 in Assessing the quality of biogeochemical coastal data: a step-wise procedure Abstract
Fig. 8: Percentage of assigned quality flags for a) temperature and salinity, b) nutrients and c) chlorophyll a in the LTER-MC dataset grouped by period, following the simplified QF scheme.
Fig. 4 in Assessing the quality of biogeochemical coastal data: a step-wise procedure Abstract
Fig. 4: A) Schematic representation of a possible spike (V2) evaluated based on its previous (V1) and subsequent (V3) values of the profile. B) Examples of identified spikes in nitrate profiles at low (pMC 535, -5 m), medium (●M276, -5m) and high (○MC48, -2 m) concentrations. Spikes are in orange.
Fig. 1 in Assessing the quality of biogeochemical coastal data: a step-wise procedure Abstract
Fig. 1: Geographical position of sampling stations for LTER-MC (●), Si.Di.Mar (●) and TYR (●) datasets.
Fig. 2 in Assessing the quality of biogeochemical coastal data: a step-wise procedure Abstract
Fig. 2: Frequency distribution of individual parameters in the LTER-MC dataset before applying QC (TEMP: temperature, PSAL: salinity, NTRI: nitrites, PHOS: phosphates, AMON: ammonia, NTRA: nitrates, SLCA: silicates, CHLT: chlorophyll a, S: skewness and K: kurtosis).
Fig. 9 in Assessing the quality of biogeochemical coastal data: a step-wise procedure Abstract
Fig. 9: Flags (¡ QF0, pQF2, and ÚQF6) for surface nitrates (NO3) concentrations in the Si.Di.Mar. dataset.
Fig. 6 in Assessing the quality of biogeochemical coastal data: a step-wise procedure Abstract
Fig. 6: Colour-coded flags for temperature data in monthly vertical temperature profiles in the LTER-MC dataset.
Fig. 5 in Assessing the quality of biogeochemical coastal data: a step-wise procedure Abstract
Fig. 5: Chlorophyll a data for April at 10 m depth: comparison of a standard (on the left) and an adjusted box plot (Hubert & Vandervieren, 2008) at LTER-MC.
Fig. 7 in Assessing the quality of biogeochemical coastal data: a step-wise procedure Abstract
Fig. 7: Percentages of quality flags attributed through the QC procedure to the whole LTER-MC dataset (~84,000 data-points).
Data and Code for "Value dissonance in research(er) assessment: Individual and institutional priorities in review, promotion and tenure criteria related to research quality, quantity, openness and responsibility"
<p>This snapshot contains code and data for the preprint "Value dissonance in research(er) assessment: Individual and institutional priorities in review, promotion and tenure criteria related to research quality, quantity, openness and responsibility".</p> <p>Instructions on re-using the data and running the code can be found in the README.md.</p> <p>Changes:</p> <ul> <li>Added survey instrument and informed consent.</li> </ul>
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.