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.
2
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
2 results for “FAIR4RS”
A Survey on Adoption Guidelines for the FAIR4RS Principles: Dataset
<p>A list of 30+ online resources have been identified and curated by the FAIR4RS Subgroup 5: Adoption Guidelines. These resources are available as the supplementary materials of the report (<a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6374598">Martinez et al., 2022</a>) and can be downloaded and cited from this landing page.</p> <p><strong>The list is open for additions by the community via comments directly to this <a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1pMWEyadkGW22zYaBl3LsNYoQVk9AW711-2Ogyi8UZZo/edit#gid=0">link</a>. We particularly encourgae authors of new and exisiting resources to add as much detail as possible to describe their resource and its relevance to the <a href="http://doi.org/10.15497/RDA00068">FAIR4RS Principles</a>. Each of the columns has a description and whether the information is optional or not. Whe plan to add tags to the added resources for each semester and when there is another set of 30 resources we can resealease a new version. </strong></p> <p>This list reflects the wide spectrum of global contributions supporting the implementation of the FAIR Principles, particularly regarding research software. It is a snapshot of currently available resources, although we expect that new resources will become available in the future and that the contents of the current list will evolve. It is important to note that most of these resources precede the definition of the <a href="https://doi.org/10.15497/RDA00068">FAIR4RS Principles</a>; however, these still support their implementation.</p> <p>The resources were manually collected, analyzed, and categorized according to their type: guidelines, tools, metadata schemas and registries/repositories. For each resource detail is also provided on which of the FAIR4RS Principles that the resource supports.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Data collection</strong></p> <p>This subgroup initiated a crowdsourcing effort to identify relevant resources. All members had the opportunity to provide and describe existing FAIR research software guidelines and tools. During the first two months of the subgroup operation in 2021, subgroup participants (referred to as data providers) added resources to an online spreadsheet. Data providers were encouraged to list resources that they were aware of, authored, or were supported by their institutions. Subsequently, the subgroup organized virtual calls to discuss the resources, their descriptions and the categorization. Over the next two months each data provider added descriptions to resources they were familiar with. This meant that some resources gained descriptions from different data providers. Before the completion of the list, the subgroup leads checked the list and cleaned it (removing items that lacked information or providing complementary information). The resulting list is the first crowdsourced list of its type and it welcomes your contributions!</p>
Awareness of FAIR and FAIR4RS among international research software funders (Dataset)
<p><span>This research employed a mixed methods online survey to investigate research software funders’ perspectives. </span></p> <p><span>All participants gave informed consent at the start of the online survey. The University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Institutional Review Board (no. 24374) reviewed the study and determined it exempt.</span></p> <p><span>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. </span></p> <h2><span>Survey design</span></h2> <p><span>The survey began by collecting profile information, including institutional affiliation and job title. The survey primarily gathered detailed information about initiatives, policies, or programs to support research software but also included a much smaller set of questions about additional topics, such as strategic funding priorities and awareness of key concepts. The data generated from this survey are too extensive to report in a single manuscript. Here, we focus on the results generated via the set of questions asking about FAIR and FAIR4RS, specifically, the following survey items: </span></p> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td> <p><strong><span>Variable</span></strong></p> </td> <td> <p><strong><span>Survey item</span></strong></p> </td> <td> <p><strong><span>Response options</span></strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><span>Awareness of FAIR principles</span></p> </td> <td> <p><span>“Have you ever heard of the FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable) principles for data?”</span></p> </td> <td> <p><span>Yes, No, Unsure</span></p> <p><span>(If ‘Yes’, then the next question was asked)</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><span>“How familiar are you with the FAIR principles for data?”</span></p> </td> <td> <p><span>Not at all Familiar, Slightly Familiar, Somewhat Familiar, Moderately Familiar, Extremely Familiar</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><span>Awareness of FAIR4RS principles</span></p> </td> <td> <p><span>“Have you ever heard of the FAIR4RS principles for research software?”</span></p> </td> <td> <p><span>Yes, No, Unsure</span></p> <p><span>(If ‘Yes’, then the next question was asked)</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><span>“How familiar are you with the FAIR4RS principles for research software?”</span></p> </td> <td> <p><span>Not at all Familiar, Slightly Familiar, Somewhat Familiar, Moderately Familiar, Extremely Familiar</span></p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <p><span> </span></p> <p><span>In addition, an open-ended question asked for further detail about the respondents’ assessments of FAIR4RS’s relevance to their work.</span></p> <h2><span>Sampling</span></h2> <p><span>The survey targeted international research funders, including governmental and non-governmental (e.g., philanthropic) organizations. An initial contact list was created based on participation in the Research Software Association (ReSA) and known responsibilities for research software funding among the authors' networks. This list was refined by removing individuals who had moved to unrelated professional roles or were unavailable long-term due to personal issues.</span></p> <p><span>The final contact list comprised 71 people at 37 funding organizations. After excluding individuals when a member of their organization had already provided a complete response or when the person was no longer working on a relevant topic or was otherwise unavailable (total of n=30), 41 people remained. Of these, five did not complete the survey, while 36 individuals (representing 30 research funding organizations) did, yielding a response rate of 87.8% (and representing 81% of the original organizations). Fully completed survey responses were not required for inclusion in the sample, resulting in varied sample sizes across different survey questions.</span></p> <p><span>The respondents represented governmental (n=26), philanthropic (n=6), and corporate (n=1) research funders.</span></p> <p><span>Respondents’ job titles spanned the following categories: Senior Leadership and Executive (e.g., Vice President of Strategy); Program and Project Management (e.g., Senior Program Manager); Planning and Business Development; and Scientific, Technical, and IT roles (e.g., Scientific Information Lead).</span></p> <p><span>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?” Meanwhile, 18.2% (n=6) said “No,” and 9.1% (n=3) were “Unsure.”</span></p> <p><span>Regarding geographic distribution in the achieved sample, most survey respondents were from North America and Europe, with 15 and 12 participants, respectively. The sample also comprised 4 participants from South America, 3 from Oceania, and 1 from Asia, reflecting a global but uneven representation across continents. Some participating funders covered a broad spectrum of disciplines, while others focused on specific domains such as social sciences, health, environment, physical sciences, or humanities.</span></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.