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.
22
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
22 results for “Open Access Monitoring”
NWO and ZonMw Open Access Monitor 2023 dataset
<p>This is the full dataset of the NWO and ZonMw Open Access Monitor 2023 report and accompanying Appendix 'Estimating Costs of Open Access Publishing'. </p> <p>DOI of NWO and ZonMw Open Access Monitor report: <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12685800">https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12685800 </a><br>DOI to Appendix ‘Estimating costs of open access publishing’: <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13885012">https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13885012</a></p> <p> </p>
Utrecht University Open Access Monitor: Methodology
<p>Methodology used for the Utrecht University Open Access Monitor, which attributes OA labels to peer reviewed journal articles registered by researchers in the UU CRIS and UMCU CRIS (PURE).</p>
National Open Access Monitor, Ireland - Research product metadata
<p>This dataset contains the foundational data for the National Open Access Monitor under an open license. OpenAIRE will routinely provide monthly data dumps to Zenodo, encompassing a comprehensive set of data and indicators related to the Open Access Monitor. This collaborative effort ensures accessibility and openness in sharing the data, promoting transparency and facilitating its use for research and analysis purposes.<br>The dataset comprises of the metadata of the research products metadata stored in the parquet format. The file contains two columns ("id", "xml"), the first of which is the OpenAIRE identifier of the research product and the the second the xml representation of the metadata. The schema of the metadata can be found in https://www.openaire.eu/schema/1.0/oaf-1.0.xsd and a detailed description of the contents can be found in https://graph.openaire.eu/docs/ and https://zenodo.org/records/2643199</p>
National Open Access Monitor Survey: Organisational Identity: Responses Dataset
<p>This dataset contains the response data from the 'National Open Access Monitor Survey: Organisational Identity which was carried out between 9th October and 9th November 2023 under the National Open Access Monitor Project: <a href="https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.8420404">https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.8420404</a></p><p><strong>This survey was run to:</strong></p><ul><li>compile a complete list of Irish research performing organisations (RPO) and research funding organisations (RFO) to be represented by the National Open Access Monitor.</li><li>ensure each organisation/entity is categorised correctly as an RPO or an RFO (or both), as applicable.</li><li>identify if an organisation/entity is publicly funded.</li><li>identify formally affiliated organisations/entities where <strong>all </strong>research outputs of one organisation/entity should also be included in the research outputs of another organisation/entity.</li><li>capture the persistent identifiers for RPOs, RFOs and publishers, to enable identification of relevant research outputs for the National Open Access Monitor.</li></ul><p><strong>To note: </strong></p><ul><li>Respondents' email addresses have been redacted.</li><li>Responses have been pseudonymised to the level of stakeholder-group e.g. Contributor A, Research Funding Organisation A, where requested by the participant in the participant consent form: <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7589770">https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7589770</a>.</li><li>Respondents were notified of the limits of pseudonymisation for this survey. Due to the nature and purpose of this survey on Organisational Identity, the identity of the organisation/entity could not be pseudonymised. Participants were advised only to participate if they were happy to do so under these conditions.</li><li>Survey responses were deleted by request of certain respondents. These responses are not included in these files.</li><li>Survey respondents were enabled to update their submissions. These changes are captured in the <i>NationalOpenAccessMonitorSurvey.OrganisationalIdentity.MasterChangeFile.</i></li></ul><p><strong>There are four files within in this dataset:</strong></p><p>- <i>Results.NationalOpenAccessMonitorSurvey.OrganisationalIdentity.README - </i>this PDF details the changes made to the raw data, as specified in the bullet points above and a description of the files within the dataset.</p><p>- <i>Results.NationalOpenAccessMonitorSurvey.OrganisationalIdentity.Pseudonymised.101123</i> - this is the original raw data, in csv format, as downloaded from the Online Surveys platform and subsequently pseudonymised and redacted.</p><p>- <i>NationalOpenAccessMonitorSurvey.OrganisationalIdentity.MasterChangeFile.101123 </i>- this is a change file, in csv format, which documents the changes which participants requested to be made to their submissions after they were received.</p><p>- R<i>esults.NationalOpenAccessMonitorSurvey.OrganisationalIdentity.Pseudonymised.Updated.101123 - </i>this is the original raw data, pseudonymised and redacted, with the requested changes implemented.</p><p><strong>Notes for data use:</strong></p><ul><li>The "affiliated organisations/entities" section of the survey was insufficiently described in the survey text. One-to-one follow-up and support was provided to clarify to respondents that questions 12 and 13 of the survey intended to identify where <strong>all </strong>research outputs of one organisation/entity should appear on that organisation's/entities' own RPO or RFO dashboard within the National Open Access Monitor, and <strong>also </strong>on the dashboard of another organisation/entity. </li><li>Survey respondents were notified in the introduction section to the "affiliated organisations/entities" section that "<strong>only where all entities agree there is a formal relationship in place</strong> that should be reflected in the Monitor will the link be implemented". Therefore, for the National Open Access Monitor project, only where both parties have asserted that <strong>all </strong>research outputs of one organisation/entity should also appear on the dashboard of another organisation/entity, will it be considered validated and implemented. </li><li>The geographic scope of the National Open Access Monitor Project is the Republic of Ireland. Where respondent's RPO or RFO organisations/entities are based outside the Republic of Ireland, or where respondents stated affiliations with overseas organisations/entities, they will not be actioned or implemented. To note: the survey invited responses from international <i>publishers</i> to enable filtering functionality by publisher within the National Open Access Monitor, these responses are <i>not </i>out of scope. </li></ul><p>-----------------------</p><p>The context for the survey is detailed in the National Open Access Monitor Project Plan: <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7331431">https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7331431</a>, the National Open Access Monitor Advisory Group Meeting Minutes, 18th September 2023: <a href="https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.8405472">https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.8405472</a> and the Developing the National Open Access Monitor, Ireland: Stakeholder Webinar, 22nd September 2023: <a href="https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.8370578">https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.8370578.</a></p><p>This project is managed by <a href="http://www.irel.ie/">IReL </a>and has received funding from Ireland's National Open Research Forum under the NORF Open Research Fund. <a href="https://norf.ie/funding/">https://norf.ie/funding/ </a><a href="https://norf.ie/orf-projects-announcement/">https://norf.ie/orf-projects-announcement/</a></p>
National Open Access Monitor, Draft Report: Stakeholder Feedback: Response Dataset
<p>This dataset contains the response data from the 'National Open Access Monitor, Draft Report: Stakeholder Feedback' Form which was open from 16th to 30th November 2023 under the National Open Access Monitor Project. A PDF reference copy of the Feedback Form is available here: <a href="https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.10141988">https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.10141988</a></p><p>The purpose of the form was to capture stakeholder feedback on the National Open Access Monitor, Ireland Draft Report, for actioning by OpenAIRE in the final National Open Access Monitor Report to be delivered in January 2024. The draft is an interim report, and includes reference to the initial feedback from IReL and the National Open Access Monitor Project Advisory Group.</p><p><strong>To note: </strong></p><ul><li>Responses have been pseudonymised to the level of stakeholder-group e.g. Contributor I, Research Performing Organisation I, where requested by the participant in the participant consent form: <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7589770">https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7589770</a></li><li>This is the original raw data file, in csv format, as downloaded from the Online Surveys platform and subsequently pseudonymised.</li></ul><p>-----------------------</p><p>The context for the feedback form is detailed in the National Open Access Monitor Project Plan: <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7331431">https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7331431</a>, the National Open Access Monitor Advisory Group Meeting Minutes, 27th October 2023: <a href="https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.10105023 ">https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.10105023 </a>and the OpenAIRE National Open Access Monitor Ireland, Draft Report: <a href="https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.10136295">https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.10136295</a></p><p>This project is managed by <a href="http://www.irel.ie/">IReL </a>and has received funding from Ireland's National Open Research Forum under the NORF Open Research Fund. <a href="https://norf.ie/funding/">https://norf.ie/funding/ </a><a href="https://norf.ie/orf-projects-announcement/">https://norf.ie/orf-projects-announcement/</a></p>
Dataset for Earth Sciences at Freie Universität Berlin: Open Access, Licenses and Persistent Identifiers Monitoring
<p>In <em>Version 4</em>, <strong>publishers </strong>and <strong>journals</strong> names has been extended.</p> <p>In <em>Version 3</em>, new entries have been added for both <strong>journal </strong>and <strong>non-journal article outputs</strong>, specifically including data from the year <strong>2023</strong>. Minor adjustments were also made to URLs and open access (OA) statuses.</p> <p><em>Note</em>: Data for journal and non-journal article outputs from the year 2023 were unavailable at the time of preparing the <strong>short paper</strong> presenting the results, findable under <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14170751" target="_blank" rel="noopener">10.5281/zenodo.14170751</a> [1]).</p> <p><br>Started in 2021, Berlin University Alliance (BUA) Open Science Dashboards, followed by the BUA Open Science Magnifiers projects, seek to investigate Open Science (OS) practices across different research domains and communities. A primary focus of these initiatives lies in the development of OS indicators, tailored to discipline specific ones, alongside their visualisation for monitoring.</p> <p>Collaborating closely with the Department of Earth Sciences at Freie Universität Berlin (FU), one of the project's key objectives is the implementation of an Open Science Dashboard for Earth Sciences FU. The visualisation of the first OS metrics is already available under <a href="https://quest-open-earthsciences.charite.de/">https://quest-open-earthsciences.charite.de/</a>.</p> <p>The datasets utilized include the outputs from the Department of Earth Sciences at FU, i.a. on Open Access (OA) categorisations and statuses, persistent identifiers (PIDs) and Open Licences (Creative Commons) availability, published between 2016-2023. These datasets consist of (i) <strong>"journal_articles_v3.csv"</strong> and (ii) <strong>"non_journal_articles_outputs_v3.csv"</strong>, the latter including “book”, “book chapter”, “conference paper”, “conference abstract”, and “other research outputs” (e.g. book reviews, project reports, book chapters in school books, or electronic supplementary material).</p> <p>Data for the dashboard was obtained from the FU university bibliography (<a href="https://frub-berlin.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/">https://frub-berlin.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/</a>), but coverage of PID information was incomplete, OA category information was incomplete and often erroneous, and copyright/open licence information was missing in this data set. Therefore, the data set was <strong>enriched with manually researched information</strong>. Data enrichment was different for journal articles and for non-journal-article publications. For <strong><em>journal articles</em></strong>, <em>copyright/open licence</em> information was added, and <em>open access category</em> information was checked and added or corrected. For <strong><em>non-journal-article outputs</em></strong>, missing <em>PIDs</em> were added and <em>open access category</em> information was checked and added or corrected. </p> <p>The "<em>data_dictionary_earth_sciences_v3.csv"</em> table documents all variables of each data file containing here.</p> <p>Both for the dashboard, and in our following publications, we categorized <strong>"bronze"</strong> OA outputs as closed access. Although such publications are openly available on the publisher's websites, they lack licence information and thus cannot be openly reused, and presumably even change its openness status at any time. Following the methodology of Charité Dashboard on Responsible Research (<a href="https://quest-dashboard.charite.de/#tabStart">https://quest-dashboard.charite.de/#tabStart</a>) we only include "gold", "hybrid" and "green" OA as true OA. Further details about the enrichment process conducted on these datasets can be found under <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1099821" target="_blank" rel="noopener">10.5281/zenodo.1099821</a>9 [2]</p> <p> </p> <p>[1] Duine, M., Iarkaeva, A., & Hübner, A. (2024, November 15). Initiating discipline-specific Open Science Monitoring with the Open Science Dashboard for Earth Sciences. 28th International Conference on Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators (STI2024), Berlin, Germany. <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14170751" target="_blank" rel="noopener">https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14170751</a><br>[2] Duine, M., Hübner, A., & Iarkaeva, A. (2024). Enrichment of university bibliography data for open science monitoring. Zenodo. <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10998219">https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10998219</a></p>
Monitoring open access publishing of NWO funded research (2015-2021) data set
<p>This is the dataset underlying the report "Monitoring open access publishing of NWO funded research" (<a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7041897">https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7041897</a>)</p> <p>The report presents statistics on the extent to which publications from the period 2015–2021 funded by NWO are available in Open Access. The analyses presented in this report also cover publications funded by the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development ZonMw. This report builds on two earlier reports, published in <a href="https://zenodo.org/record/4446042">2020</a> and <a href="https://zenodo.org/record/5056043">2021</a>, covering publications from the period 2015–2018 and 2015-2020, respectively.</p>
2023 Utrecht University Open Access Monitor (peer reviewed journal articles)
<p>Results of the OA monitor of Utrecht University (UU) and University Medical Center Utrecht(UMCU) for the year 2023. It lists the open access availability of all peer reviewed journal articles registered in the CRIS (Pure) of Utrecht University and/or University Medical Center Utrecht. </p>
Monitoring and evaluation of UKRI's Open Access Policy: Exploring the use of open data sources to inform baseline values - Dataset
<p>This dataset accompanies the report <em>"Monitoring and evaluation of UKRI's Open Access Policy: Exploring the use of open data sources to inform baseline values"</em>, which is available via Zenodo.<br><br>It provides record-level data of UKRI-funded and UK-affiliated research output (limited to journal articles with Crossref DOIs) published between 2012 and 2022 - including bibliographic metadata as well as data on open access availability, publisher, national and international collaborations, citations, views and downloads, altmetrics and subjects (fields). All variables are documented in the data dictionary included in this Zenodo record.</p> <p>The code used to generate the dataset from open data sources is available on GitHub. </p> <p>The following data sources were used:</p> <ul> <li> <p>Gateway to Research (records downloaded between 2023-11-05 and 2023-11-13)</p> </li> <li> <p>Crossref (Metadata Plus snaphot 2023-10-31, Crossref member route API 2024-01-23)</p> </li> <li> <p>OpenAlex (data snapshot 2023-10-18)</p> </li> <li> <p>Unpaywall (data snapshot 2023-11-27)</p> </li> <li> <p>IRUS UK (2024-04-03)</p> </li> <li> <p>Crossref Event Data (2023-04-01)</p> </li> </ul> <p><strong></strong><br><br>The project made use of Curtin Open Knowledge Initiative (COKI) infrastructure, which is documented on GitHub: <a href="https://github.com/The-Academic-Observatory">https://github.com/The-Academic-Observatory</a>. </p>
NWO and ZonMw Open Access Monitor 2022 - dataset
<p>This is the dataset underlying the report "NWO and ZonMw Open Access Monitor 2022". </p><p>Openly accessible metadata was used to research if and how publications from research funded by NWO and ZonMw were open access in 2022. 93% of the articles that were detected have been made available open access using one of the available routes (NWO: 93,1%; ZonMw: 92,5%). This is a slight increase compared to 2021 (90%) and 2020 (85%). At least 64% of the included NWO and ZonMw publications of 2022 (3.688 out of 5.763) has been published via Gold, Hybrid, under a transformative agreement, or Green OA, with a CC-BY license and is therefore fully Plan S compliant. </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>
SNSF Open Access Monitoring: Data Publications 2013-2014
<p>This spreadsheet contains supplemental data to the report: "Open Access to Publications: SNSF monitoring report 2013 - 2015" (http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.584131), where it was found that at least 39% of publications out of SNSF funded grants are either Gold or Green Open Access.</p> <p>The initial data is based on the reported publications to the Swiss National Science Foundation via the grant administration system mySNF as of <strong>11. September 2015.</strong> This data is also available as open data on p3.snf.ch. Please be aware, that grant beneficiaries can update the metadata to the reported publications, including the Open Access status anytime during and after the end of a grant.</p> <p>Prior to validation, the actual publication date of publications with “in press/accepted” status was verified insofar as possible, and the details updated (approx. 3'000 publications). For further processing only publications with <strong>publication date 2013-2014</strong> were considered. Publications with the status “in press/accepted” status were excluded. Duplicates, i.e. publications cited as output for more than one project (approx. 2'500) are also filtered out. Where identifiable as such, pure abstracts (e.g. in journal supplements), working papers and pre-prints were also excluded.</p> <p><br> The basic goal was to locate a DOI for the publication and update the metadata. 78% of the 17'420 publications scrutinised have in the meantime been assigned a DOI. Using the DOI and the linked metadata available in CrossRef, unique searches could be performed in additional sources such as DOAJ, Pubmed and Pubmed Central, OpenAIRE (repository aggregator) and ADS (Astrophysics Data System). After the initial search for open access full text in these external sources, a search was made in Google Scholar using the DOI of the remaining publications still to be validated and links to any open access full text were extracted. Where even the Google Scholar search failed to turn up open access full text, the status was set to “closed access”. The OA status of 4'212 publications from the period 2013 to 2014 remained unclear, but it is more likely that they are in closed rather than open access mode.</p>
The Politecnico di Torino rolling bearing test rig: description of the open-access data for vibration monitoring and diagnostics
<p>Accelerometric measurements from the rolling bearing test rig of the Dynamic and Identification Research Group (DIRG), Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Politecnico di Torino.</p> <p>Goals:</p> <p> • Vibration Monitoring, Bearing Diagnostics, Damage detection, Damage localization, Damage classification, Damage assessment.</p> <p>Features:</p> <p> • high-speed spindle driving a hollow shaft supported by a couple of identical roller bearings B1 and B3. B1 is the bearing under analysis and features various damages.</p> <p> • two damage types (indentations on a roller and on the inner ring) and severities (0, 150, 250, 450 µm).</p> <p> • a central, larger roller bearing (B2) is loaded through a sledge generating a controlled radial force measured by a load cell.</p> <p> • lubrication is obtained by oil injection into the hollow shaft.</p> <p> • a K-type thermocouple is used to monitor the temperature (manually recorded).</p> <p> • two triaxial accelerometers are mounted on the supports of bearings B1 and B2.</p> <p>Dataset:</p> <p> • stationary acquisitions at different speed & load combinations (speed: 0, 100, 200, 300, 400, 500 Hz; load: 0, 1000, 1400, 1800 N).</p> <p> • endurance acquisitions of the bearing featuring the 450µm roller indentation. Monitoring of the damage evolution for about 230 hours under the same speed and load condition.</p> <p> </p> <p>The extended description of the dataset can be found in the attached pdf "Description and analysis of open access data" or in:</p> <p>A.P. Daga, A. Fasana, S. Marchesiello, L. Garibaldi, The Politecnico di Torino rolling bearing test rig: Description and analysis of open access data, Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 120 (2019) 252–273. doi:10.1016/j.ymssp.2018.10.010.</p>
Monitoring open access publishing of NWO funded research (data)
<p>This is the dataset underlying the report "Monitoring open access publishing of NWO funded research" (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5055609). </p> <p>The report presents statistics on the extent to which publications from the period 2015–2020 funded by NWO are available in Open Access . The analyses presented in this report also cover publications funded by the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development ZonMw.</p> <p>This report builds on an <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4446042">earlier report</a> published in 2020 covering publications from the period 2015–2018.</p> <p> </p>
National Open Access Monitor Survey: Defining Requirements: Responses Dataset
<p>This dataset contains the response data from the ‘National Open Access Monitor Survey: Defining Requirements’ which was carried out between February 2-28th 2023 under the National Open Access Monitor Project: <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7588787">https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7588787</a></p> <p>To note: </p> <ul> <li>Email addresses have been redacted. </li> <li>Responses have been pseudonymised to the level of stakeholder-group e.g. Contributor 1, Research Funding Organisation #, where requested by the participant in the participant consent form: <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7589770">https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7589770</a>. </li> <li>Detail within responses by individuals who requested pseudonymisation, which might identify the individual or the organisation has been removed and marked "[redacted]".</li> <li>Responses by individuals who did not provide a signed consent form in advance of contributing to the survey were deleted immediately on receipt, as advised in the survey text: <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7588787">https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7588787</a>. Such responses are not included in these files.</li> </ul> <p>There are five files within in this dataset:</p> <p>- <em>Results.NationalOpenAccessMonitorSurvey.DefiningRequirements.README - </em>this PDF details the changes made to the raw data, as specified in the bullet points above and a description of the files within the dataset.</p> <p>- <em>Results.NationalOpenAccessMonitorSurvey.DefiningRequirements.Pseudonymised.100323</em> - this is the original raw data, in csv format, as downloaded from the Online Surveys platform and subsequently pseudonymised and redacted.</p> <p>- <em>NationalOpenAccessMonitor.DefiningRequirements.Contributor3Government1.270223 - </em>this PDF file contains a single pseudonymised stakeholder response to the survey, obtained by the Project Manager by email and not through the Online Surveys platform.</p> <p>- <em>NationalOpenAccessMonitorSurvey.MasterChangeFile.080323 </em>- this is a change file, in csv format, which documents the changes which participants requested to be made to their submissions after they were received and the survey was closed.</p> <p>- <em>Results.NationalOpenAccessMonitorSurvey.DefiningRequirements.Pseudonymised.Updated.100323 - </em>this is the original raw data, pseudonymised and redacted, with the requested changes implemented. This is the file on which analysis was carried out for the purposes of the <a href="http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7822367">survey outcome report</a> and the resulting National Open Access Monitor tender documents. </p> <p>------------------------</p> <p>The context for the survey files is detailed in the National Open Access Monitor Project Plan: <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7331431">https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7331431</a></p> <p>This project is managed by <a href="http://www.irel.ie/">IReL </a>and has received funding from Ireland’s National Open Research Forum under the NORF Open Research Fund. <a href="https://norf.ie/funding/">https://norf.ie/funding/</a> <a href="https://norf.ie/orf-projects-announcement/">https://norf.ie/orf-projects-announcement/</a></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) 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) 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) 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) 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>
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.