Find research datasets worth reusing

opencc-by-4.0Sep 2019View details →

Insights into European research funders policies and practices - public dataset

This is the dataset arising from a survey of European research funders on Open Access (OA) and Research Data (RD) policies, commissioned by SPARC Europe, in consultation with representatives from the following organisations: <a href="https://www.allea.org/">ALLEA</a>, the <a href="https://www.efc.be/">European Foundation Centre</a> and <a href="http://scienceeurope.org/">Science Europe</a> and a wider advisory group. Launched in the spring of 2019, the survey, which targeted about 400 funders, garnered just over 60 responses from 29 countries. The cohort includes important national funding agencies (almost 50%), pan-European funders, national and regional academies, foundations and philanthropic organisations and research charities.

opencc-by-4.0Oct 2024View details →

Awareness of FAIR and FAIR4RS among international research software funders (Dataset)

This research employed a mixed methods online survey to investigate research software funders’ perspectives. 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. 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. <h2>Survey design</h2> 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: <table> <tbody> <tr> <td> Variable </td> <td> Survey item </td> <td> Response options </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Awareness of FAIR principles </td> <td> “Have you ever heard of the FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable) principles for data?” </td> <td> Yes, No, Unsure (If ‘Yes’, then the next question was asked) </td> </tr> <tr> <td> “How familiar are you with the FAIR principles for data?” </td> <td> Not at all Familiar, Slightly Familiar, Somewhat Familiar, Moderately Familiar, Extremely Familiar </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Awareness of FAIR4RS principles </td> <td> “Have you ever heard of the FAIR4RS principles for research software?” </td> <td> Yes, No, Unsure (If ‘Yes’, then the next question was asked) </td> </tr> <tr> <td> “How familiar are you with the FAIR4RS principles for research software?” </td> <td> Not at all Familiar, Slightly Familiar, Somewhat Familiar, Moderately Familiar, Extremely Familiar </td> </tr> </tbody> </table>   In addition, an open-ended question asked for further detail about the respondents’ assessments of FAIR4RS’s relevance to their work. <h2>Sampling</h2> 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. 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. The respondents represented governmental (n=26), philanthropic (n=6), and corporate (n=1) research funders. 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). 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.” 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.

opencc-by-4.0Nov 2021View details →

Analysis of international funder data polices

In October 2021, STM commissioned a research on funder data policies. The top 100 funders based on number of Crossref records were selected, and analyzed for the availability of data polices. These data policies were analyzed according to the elements of the journal data policy framework as developed by Hrynaszkiewicz et al. (https://datascience.codata.org/article/10.5334/dsj-2020-005/). This research will be used as input for more alignment between funder and data policies.

opencc-by-4.0Oct 2022View details →

Research Software Funders Global South

The Research Software Alliance's (ReSA) mission is to bring research software communities together to collaborate on the advancement of research software. Given the ReSA mission, it is important to understand the landscape of communities involved with research software. In 2020, ReSA completed an initial exercise to scope the international research software community landscape. This work was reported by ReSA's Software Landscape Analysis task force via a <a href="https://www.researchsoft.org/blog/2020-03/">blog post</a>. The majority of the communities in the previous analysis represented the global north. To improve the extent of this landscape analysis, ReSA announced a paid opportunity for short-term contractors located in <a href="https://www.researchsoft.org/2022-mapping/">the global south</a> to collect data on communities and funders in their region in early 2022. This document describes how the work was undertaken, a summary of findings, the gaps and opportunities perceived by the data collectors and some highlights. This work identified 126 organisations and communities and 62  funder bodies that support research software in the global south. Their main activities are connecting people, training, and networking, and support through research grants.   To add to this funders list please fill in the following form: <a href="https://forms.gle/CJWo24MUCjhWKh9U8">https://forms.gle/CJWo24MUCjhWKh9U8</a>

opencc-by-4.0Jan 2023View details →

Research Funding in the Middle East and North Africa: Analyses of Acknowledgments in Scientific Publications (unified funders)

This dataset is the result of the unification of funder names acknowledged in scientific publications indexed in the Web of Science with at least one author affiliated to an institution located in the Middle East and North Africa. This list contains 1,039 unified names of funders from the 22 MENA countries as of 16 March 2023 along with their type and country.

opencc-pddcJul 2022View details →

Dataset: The availability and completeness of open funder metadata - Case study for publications funded by the Dutch Research Council

Data and code belonging to the manuscript: The availability and completeness of open funder metadata - Case study for publications funded by the Dutch Research Council  Abstract: Research funders spend considerable efforts collecting information on outcomes of the research they fund. To help funders track publication output associated with their funding, Crossref initiated FundRef in 2013, enabling publishers to register funding information using persistent identifiers. However, it is hard to assess the coverage of funder metadata because it is unknown how many articles are the result of funded research and therefore should include funder metadata.  In this paper we looked at 5,004 publications reported by researchers to be the result of funding by a specific funding agency: the Dutch Research Council NWO. Only 67% of these articles contain funding information in Crossref, with a subset acknowledging NWO as funder name and/or Funder IDs linked to NWO (53% and 45%, respectively).  Web of Science (WoS), Scopus and Dimensions are all able to infer additional funding information from funding statements in the full text of the articles. Funding information in Lens largely corresponds to that in Crossref, with some additional funding information likely taken from PubMed.   We observe interesting differences between publishers in the coverage and completeness of funding metadata in Crossref compared to proprietary databases, highlighting potential to increase the quality of open metadata on funding.  This dataset contains the following files: <ul> <li>DOIs_unique_CR_Lens_Wos_Scopus_Dim.csv - Dataset of unique DOIs (n= 5,004) with collected information from Crossref and presence/absence of funder information in Lens, Web of Science, Scopus  and Dimensions </li> <li>NWO_funder_names_Crossref.txt - List of funder name variants for NWO found in Crossref</li> <li>Google_Apps_Script.js - Google Apps Script for retrieving information from Crossref and processing Dimensions results </li> <li>DOI_cleaning.R - R script for cleaning DOIs</li> </ul>

opencc-zeroOct 2021View details →

Crossref Funder Registry - Mapping to top-level funding organizations

The <a href="https://www.crossref.org/services/funder-registry/">Crossref Funder Registry</a> is an open registry of names and identifiers of research funding organizations. The registry has a hierarchical structure. Each organization may have relations with parent and child organizations. We provide a mapping of organizations in the Crossref Funder Registry to the corresponding top-level organizations. The mapping is based on version 1.34 of the Crossref Funder Registry, made available in an RDF file in the <a href="https://gitlab.com/crossref/open_funder_registry/">Crossref Funder Registry GitLab repository</a>. To create the mapping to top-level organizations, we first extracted the hierarchical structure of the Crossref Funder Registry based on all ‘narrower’ and ‘broader’ assignments. Using this hierarchical structure, we then identified for each of the 27,681 active organizations in the registry the corresponding top-level organizations. For most organizations, we identified a single top-level organization. However, organizations may have multiple parent organizations, and for some organizations we therefore identified multiple top-level organizations.   Example: ‘H2020 Societal Challenges’ has ‘Horizon 2020 Framework Programme’ as its only parent organization, ‘Horizon 2020 Framework Programme’ has ‘European Commission’ as its only parent organization, and ‘European Commission’ does not have a parent organization. The top-level organization corresponding to ‘H2020 Societal Challenges’ therefore is ‘European Commission’. We ignored the following parent-child relations in order to avoid having cycles in the network of parent-child relations: <ul> <li>Child organization: Ministry of Science and Technology of the People's Republic of China (CHN) [DOI: 10.13039/501100002855] Parent organization: National Science and Technology Major Project (CHN) [DOI: 10.13039/501100018537]</li> <li>Child organization: University of Georgia (USA) [DOI: 10.13039/100007699] Parent organization: College of William and Mary (USA) [DOI: 10.13039/100008277]</li> </ul> We ignored the following parent-child relations because they seem to be mistakes: <ul> <li>Child organization: College of William and Mary (USA) [DOI: 10.13039/100008277] Parent organization: University of Georgia (USA) [DOI: 10.13039/100007699]</li> <li>Child organization: Fakulti Pertanian, Universiti Putra Malaysia (MYS) [DOI: 10.13039/501100006018] Parent organization: Department of Child Health, University of Manchester (GBR) [DOI: 10.13039/100007546]</li> <li>Child organization: Pusat Penyelidikan dan Inovasi, Universiti Malaysia Sabah (MYS) [DOI: 10.13039/501100006243] Parent organization: Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission (CAN) [DOI: 10.13039/501100000183]</li> <li>Child organization: Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission (CAN) [DOI: 10.13039/501100000183] Parent organization: Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences (IRN) [DOI: 10.13039/501100005851]</li> </ul>

opencc-by-4.0Jun 2023View details →

[DATASET] Supporting Open Science Hardware in Academia: Policy Recommendations for Science Funders and University Managers

Raw data from a real-time Delphi exercise used to write the policy brief: <a href="https://zenodo.org/record/8030029">Supporting Open Science Hardware in Academia: Policy Recommendations for Science Funders and University Managers</a> Access to the Real-Time Delphi platform was kindly provided by <a href="https://4strat.de">4strat</a>. See tab "meta - start here" for description of the dataset.

opencc-by-4.0Aug 2020View details →

The National CRIS in the Czech Republic and its information exchange with funder and institutional CRISs

A diagram that illustrates the role of the national Current Research Information System (CRIS) in the country of Czechia and some of the information flows that keep it updated.

opencc-by-4.0Jun 2017View details →

Figure 2 from: Neylon C (2017) Compliance Culture or Culture Change? The role of funders in improving data management and sharing practice amongst researchers. Research Ideas and Outcomes 3: e14673. https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.3.e14673

Figure 2 - The core issues and principles that a Research Data Management policy should address, adapted from Hodson and Molloy 2015

opencc-by-4.0Jun 2017View details →

Figure 1 from: Neylon C (2017) Compliance Culture or Culture Change? The role of funders in improving data management and sharing practice amongst researchers. Research Ideas and Outcomes 3: e14673. https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.3.e14673

Figure 1 - Illustration of the categories through which many research data management and sharing policies develop, with examples of the language used.

opencc-by-4.0Oct 2017View details →

Figure 2 from: Neylon C (2017) Compliance Culture or Culture Change? The role of funders in improving data management and sharing practice amongst researchers. Research Ideas and Outcomes 3: e21705. https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.3.e21705

Figure 2 - The core issues and principles that a Research Data Management policy should address, adapted from Hodson and Molloy (2015)