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.
8
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
8 results for “Editorial Board”
Gender inequalities on editorial boards of indexed pediatrics journals
<p>These raw data belong to the study “Gender inequalities on editorial boards of indexed pediatrics journals”. </p> <p>The presence of women in decision-making positions, such as on editorial committees of biomedical journals, is not the same as that of men. This paper analyzes the gender composition of editorial committees (EBMs) and editor-in-chief (ECs) positions of pediatric journals. The gender of EBMs and ECs of 125 journals classified in the pediatrics area of the Journal Citation Report (JCR) were analyzed. The following indicators were calculated: gender distribution of ECs and EBMs by journal, publisher, subject speciality, country, quartile of the journal in JCR and country of affiliation of the members. The total number of EBMs was 4,242. The distribution by sex of the ECs was 19.44% women and 80.56% men, while the EBMs were 33.05% women and 66.95% men. Twenty journals exhibited a greater representation of women than men, and in four there was parity. Journals with greater participation of women specialized in nursing, physical therapy and were related to nutrition (lactation and breastfeeding). Only one-fifth of ECs and one-third of EBMs are female. Women's participation is higher in journals related to nursing, physical and occupational therapy, and nutrition. The United States has the highest number of EBMs, followed by the European Union. </p> <p>This file contains the following variables: Rank, Full Journal Title,Editorial Board Members (EBM), First Name, Gender, Country, Country Code, Geographical Area, Editor-in-Chief (EC), Country Editor-in-Chief, Gender Editor-in-Chief, Url Journals.</p>
Data from: A persistent lack of international representation on editorial boards in environmental biology
The scholars comprising journal editorial boards play a critical role in defining the trajectory of knowledge in their field. Nevertheless, studies of editorial board composition remain rare, especially those focusing on journals publishing research in the increasingly globalized fields of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM). Using metrics for quantifying the diversity of ecological communities, we quantified international representation on the 1985–2014 editorial boards of 24 environmental biology journals. Over the course of 3 decades, there were 3,827 unique scientists based in 70 countries who served as editors. The size of the editorial community increased over time—the number of editors serving in 2014 was 4-fold greater than in 1985—as did the number of countries in which editors were based. Nevertheless, editors based outside the "Global North" (the group of economically developed countries with high per capita gross domestic product [GDP] that collectively concentrate most global wealth) were extremely rare. Furthermore, 67.18% of all editors were based in either the United States or the United Kingdom. Consequently, geographic diversity—already low in 1985—remained unchanged through 2014. We argue that this limited geographic diversity can detrimentally affect the creativity of scholarship published in journals, the progress and direction of research, the composition of the STEM workforce, and the development of science in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, and much of Asia (i.e., the "Global South").
Data from: A persistent lack of international representation on editorial boards in environmental biology
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Gender diversity of editorial boards and gender differences in the peer review process at six journals of ecology and evolution.
<p>Despite substantial progress for women in science, women remain underrepresented in many aspects of the scholarly publication process. We examined how the gender diversity of editors and reviewers changed over time for six journals in ecology and evolution (2003-2015 for four journals, 2007-2015 or 2009-2015 for the other two), and how several aspects of the peer review process differed between female and male editors and reviewers. We found that, for five of the six journals, women were either absent or very poorly represented as handling editors at the beginning of our dataset. The representation of women among handling editors increased gradually and consistently, with women making up 29% of the handling editors (averaged across journals) in 2015, similar to the representation of women as last authors on ecology papers (23% in 2015) but lower than the proportion of women among all authors (31%) and among members of the societies that own the journals (37-40%). The proportion of women among reviewers has also gradually but consistently increased over time, reaching 27% by 2015. Female editors invited more female reviewers than did male editors, and this difference increased with age of the editor. Men and women who were invited to review did not differ in whether they responded to the review invitation, but, of those that responded, women were slightly more likely to agree to review. In contrast, women were less likely than men to accept invitations to serve on journal editorial boards. Our analyses indicate that there has been progress in the representation of women as reviewers and editors in ecology and evolutionary biology, but women are still underrepresented among the gatekeepers of scholarly publishing relative to their representation among researchers.</p>
Evolution of binary gender and geographic diversity in the editorial boards of Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta and Chemical Geology
<p>Dataset from article</p> <p><strong>Evolution of diversity in the editorial boards of <em>Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta </em>and <em>Chemical Geology</em> </strong></p> <p>by Pourret et al. published in European Science Editing</p>
Data from: Gender diversity of editorial boards and gender differences in the peer review process at six journals of ecology and evolution.
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Women are underrepresented on the editorial boards of journals in environmental biology and natural resource management
Despite women earning similar numbers of graduate degrees as men in STEM disciplines, they are underrepresented in upper level positions in both academia and industry. Editorial board memberships are an important example of such positions; membership is both a professional honor in recognition of achievement and an opportunity for professional advancement. We surveyed 10 highly regarded journals in environmental biology, natural resource management, and plant sciences to quantify the number of women on their editorial boards and in positions of editorial leadership (i.e., Associate Editors and Editors-in-Chief) from 1985 to 2013. We found that during this time period only 16% of subject editors were women, with more pronounced disparities in positions of editorial leadership. Although the trend was towards improvement over time, there was surprising variation between journals, including those with similar disciplinary foci. While demographic changes in academia may reduce these disparities over time, we argue journals should proactively strive for gender parity on their editorial boards. This will both increase the number of women afforded the opportunities and benefits that accompany board membership and increase the number of role models and potential mentors for early-career scientists and students.
Data from: Women are underrepresented on the editorial boards of journals in environmental biology and natural resource management
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
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.