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.
67
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
67 results for “Open Review”
Dataset related to the manuscript: "An open-source integrated framework for the automation of citation collection and screening in systematic reviews"
<p>Dataset related to the manuscript: “An open-source integrated framework for the automation of citation collection and screening in systematic reviews”, to be used together with the code stored at https://github.com/AD-Papers-Material/BART_SystReviewClassifier to reproduce the results.</p> <p>There are three datasets:<br> - The Record data collected from the online scientific databases;<br> - The session journal which describes the search session, i.e., how many records were collected and from which source, for each query/session pairs.<br> - The session data which is the outcome of the classification and review tasks;</p>
The Open Review–Based (ORB) dataset: Towards Automatic Assessment of Scientific Papers and Experiment Proposals in High–Energy Physics
<p>We introduce the new comprehensive Open Review–Based dataset (ORB); it includes a curated list of more than 62,000 scientific papers, publications and submitted preprints with their more than 157,000 reviews and final decisions. We gather this information from three peer-reviewed sources: the OpenReview.net, SciPost.org and PeerJ.com websites.</p>
[review paper] Sustaining the 'Frozen Footprints' of Scholarly Communication through Open Citations_Dataset
<p>This dataset belongs to the review titled <em>Sustaining the ‘Frozen Footprints’ of Scholarly Communication through Open Citations</em>. The review explores the developments in the open citations movement, the OpenCitations infrastructure, and the Initiative for Open Citations (I4OC), providing a comprehensive overview of key milestones and initiatives.</p> <p>The dataset includes bibliographic and citation data for 174 scholarly outputs and 149 blogposts analyzed in the review. These outputs were drawn from a range of sources, including journal articles, conference proceedings, and other scholarly materials. The data has been curated to adhere to open citation principles, ensuring it is structured, separable, and openly accessible. It is provided in accordance with the licenses and terms of use of the original databases.</p> <p>Researchers, practitioners, and policymakers can use this dataset to explore the evolution of open citations and to further their understanding of the connections between scholarly works in the field of open research.</p>
Data from "PathOS - D1.2 Scoping Review of Open Science Impact"
<p>This dataset contains the data from the Scoping Review of Open Science Impact. Included are all record for which we assessed the full-text.</p> <p>The columns are as follows:</p> <ul> <li>id: Internal identifier</li> <li>Several metadata columns from Scopus/Web of Science: authors, year, title, abstract, type, DOI</li> <li>OS type: type of Open Science (e.g., Open Access, Citizen Science)</li> <li>inclusion_status: included, duplicate, out of scope, non-english</li> <li>justification: reasons for decision on inclusion_status</li> <li>Several columns with data extracted by the authors: Study details and design, Types of data sources, Study aims, Relevance to which aspect of impact, Key findings, Coverage/Context, Confidence assessment</li> </ul> <p>A complete description of the methods and detailed instructions for coders for extracting data from reports is contained in section 2 of the deliverable report which is available at <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7883699">https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7883699</a>.</p>
Review of definitions of Open Peer Review in the scholarly literature 2016
<p>This data set contains:</p> <ul> <li>Full data files of a 2016 review of definitions of Open Peer Review in the scholarly literature in xls and csv formats</li> <li>Description of data collection methodology (txt)</li> <li>Readme file (txt)</li> </ul> <p>The term “open peer review” has neither a standardized definition nor an agreed schema of its features and implementations. Recognising the absence of a consensus view on what OPR is, OpenAIRE has undertaken a systematic review of definitions of “open peer review” or “open review”, to create a corpus of 122 definitions. These definitions have been systematically analysed to build a coherent typology of the many different innovations in peer review signified by the term and hence provide the precise technical definition currently lacking. This quantifiable data offers rich information on the range and extent of differing definitions over time and by broad subject area.</p> <p>Contact:</p> <p>Tony Ross-Hellauer: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4470-7027 / ross-hellauer@sub.uni-goettingen.de</p>
OpenAIRE Open Peer Review Survey 2016
<p>This data set contains:</p> <p>- Full data files of a 2016 survey of attitudes to Open Peer Review in xls and csv formats<br> - Survey questions (pdf)<br> - Readme file (txt)</p> <p>Between 8 September and 7 October 2016, OpenAIRE held a survey designed to aid the development of appropriate OPR approaches by providing evidence about the attitudes of authors, editors and reviewers towards OPR, their reservations and needs, as well as to gauging current levels of experience and reservation with different types of OPR. A supplementary aim was to collect feedback on a provisional definition of OPR as created during another strand of work. The survey aimed to aid the development of appropriate OPR approaches by providing evidence about the attitudes of authors, editors and reviewers towards OPR, their reservations and needs, as well as to gauge current levels of experience and reservations with different types of OPR. The survey was conducted via an openly accessible online questionnaire (using the scientific survey platform SoSci, www.soscisurvey.de). It received a total of 3062 complete responses (a further 635 responses were discarded as incomplete). The survey was open to all wishing to take part and distributed via social media, scholarly communications mailing lists, publisher newsletters and, in one case, a publisher internal mailing list (Copernicus Publications). </p> <p>Acknowledgement: This work is funded by the European Commission H2020 project OpenAIRE2020 (Grant agreement: 643410, Call: H2020-EINFRA-2014-1)</p> <p>Contact: Dr Tony Ross-Hellauer, University of Göttingen, State and University Library, ross-hellauer@sub.uni-goettingen.de<br> </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>
Open Access levels of Dutch universities' output 2016-2017 (articles & reviews): green, gold, hybrid and bronze - May 2018
<p>Using Web of Science and Unpaywall data, we here provide an update of Open Access (OA) levels of Dutch universities, for 2016 and 2017.</p> <p>Our previous analysis (<a href="http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1133759">10.5281/zenodo.1133759</a> and <a href="http://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.3520v1">10.7287/peerj.preprints.3520v1</a>) looked at OA classification as included in Web of Science (gold and green OA, based on Unpaywall data), and supplemented that with a breakdown of gold OA into pure gold, hybrid and bronze, taken from Unpaywall data (formerly OADOI) directly. Here, we improve on this by running all DOIs retrieved from WoS through Unpaywall data (using their web interface that allows batch checking of up to 10,000 DOIs at a time). Unlike WoS, Unpaywall data itself includes author-submitted versions in their green OA classification, resulting in more complete green OA levels. </p> <p>In addition, since our initial analysis of December 2017, Unpaywall data has considerably expanded its coverage of institutional repositories (IRs) (see <a href="https://unpaywall.org/sources">https://unpaywall.org/sources</a>). This now includes coverage of the IRs from all Dutch universities. </p> <p>Taken together, the current data show higher levels of green open access, including author-submitted versions, compared to our previous analysis. </p> <p>In this update, we include output (articles and reviews) from 2016 and 2017 for all 14 universities in the Netherlands. </p> <p>The following categories are distinguished (description taken from Piwowar at al., 2018, doi: <a href="https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4375">10.7717/peerj.4375</a>)</p> <ul> <li><strong>Pure gold</strong>: Published in an open-access journal (as defined by the DOAJ)</li> <li><strong>Hybrid</strong>: Free under an open license in a toll-access journal</li> <li><strong>Bronze</strong>: Free to read on the publisher page, but without a license</li> <li><strong>Green: </strong>Available from an institutional or disciplinary repository (including PubMedCentral)</li> </ul> <p>Data for Dutch universities were collected from Web of Science using the organization-enhanced field. Only articles and reviews were included. DOIs were extracted from the Web of Science export, run through the Unpaywall data <a href="https://unpaywall.org/products/simple-query-tool">Simple Query Tool</a>. From the resulting data from Unpaywall, OA classification was done using a simple formula in Excel (to be replaced by an R script in a future update). The Excel template used is included in this dataset, as is the OADOI API output for each Dutch university's article subset, and the lists of DOIs derived from Web of Science. The dataset also includes summarized data and three charts generated from these data, showing levels of different types of OA for 2016, 2017 and the two years compared. </p> <p>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</p>
Review of documents about Open Science
<p>In a review exercise of a sample of 46 documents about Open Science governance, from institutions and regulatory actors, we identified opportunities to strengthen Open Science practices related to integrity, traceability, and preservation. </p><p>Variables to be considered: Document name, file type, institution – country, PDF/A, have DOI, have other PID, recognized by Zotero, recognized by Mendeley, metadata in PDF properties.</p><p> </p>
- Fore wing with areolet open (a); body and wings colorations variable but usually wings hyaline and body yellow interspersed with black markings (b) …………………………………2 (Epirhyssa) 2. Face smooth to sparsely punctate (A-B), without transverse rugosities ……………………………3 - Face transversely rugulose punctate or transversely striate (a-b) ……………………………………5 in A review of the Afrotropical Rhyssinae (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae) with the descriptions of five new species
- Fore wing with areolet open (a); body and wings colorations variable but usually wings hyaline and body yellow interspersed with black markings (b) …………………………………2 (Epirhyssa) 2. Face smooth to sparsely punctate (A-B), without transverse rugosities ……………………………3 - Face transversely rugulose punctate or transversely striate (a-b) ……………………………………5
Proportion of Open Access Papers Published in Peer-Reviewed Journals in Austria 2008-2013
<p>In 2014, Archambault et al. published a report which provided data about Open Access publishing for the years 2008-2013 for all countries of the European Research Area (ERA) as well as for Brazil, Canada, Japan and the USA. They differentiated not only by disciplines but also by three OA categories: Golden, Green and a residual category. For the dataset, the data for Austria and the whole area examined has been extracted and modified. The results show above-average rates for Austria in almost all disciplines.</p>
(Open) Data literacy: Dataset for a systematic review of the literature
<p>This dataset presents data used for a systematic review of the literature.</p><p>We conducted a comprehensive literature review, in which we identified the following: a) the role of data literacy as one of several barriers to use; and b) open data-related activities that foster informal learning by assisting in the development of critical data literacy as a surrogate for citizens' continued engagement with open data. Following the screening and selection of 66 articles through the use of keyword mapping, the articles were coded and subjected to quantitative analysis. On the one hand, our findings demonstrate that inadequate data literacy hinders the utilisation of open data. Conversely, it seems that open data initiatives create pertinent prospects for fostering technical data literacy among the general public, enabling them to comprehend and engage with decision-making processes that are informed by data. However, critical data literacy as a primary catalyst for the strategic and transformative utilisation of open government data receives scant attention. In conclusion, this research has the potential to provide a foundation for interventions that promote open data literacy and lifelong learning.</p>
SCOPING REVIEW OF EMPIRICAL LITERATURE ON EVALUATION OF EDITORIAL POLICIES SUPPORTING OPEN SCIENCE PRACTICES IN SCHOLARLY JOURNALS
<p>Excel file containing the description of methods & materials used in the scoping review, the whole dataset of included studies, and respective descriptive metadata.</p>
Data from "The academic impact of Open Science: a scoping review"
<p>These files include the data from the "The societal impact of Open Science - a scoping review", part of a series of studies conducetd within the PathOS Horizon Europe project on the academic, economic, and societal impacts of Open Science. This study was conducted in two phases. In phase 1 an academic database search was conducted. For phase 2 an automatic snowball search was performed based on results from phase 1 ( and grey literature was searched manually.</p> <p>The upload contains five files:</p> <ol> <li>Main file with extracted information for the 485 studies included in the review ("academic_impact_included_all_data.csv").</li> <li>Excel file documenting the grey literature search ("Grey_Literature_Search.xlsx").</li> <li>R project for the snowball search ("academic_impact_snowball.zip").</li> <li>R project for cleaning data and producing summaries and figures ("academic_impact_stats.zip").</li> <li>Excel file mapping the frascati codes used in file (1) to their textual representations ("Frascati definitions.xlsx")</li> </ol> <p>For more details on the methods see the <a href="https://osf.io/m4rnc">protocol</a> and its <a href="https://osf.io/3b6xj">addendum</a>. For the background, results and discussion see the <a href="../records/7883699">deliverable</a> (reporting on phase 1) and the pre-print.</p>
Data Extracted for the Systematic Literature Review on Non-profit Open data Intermediaries and their effects on Open data Usability Barriers
<p>The dataset contains the data extracted from the literature for the Systematic Literature Review and is referenced or used in the extended abstract titled "How do Non-profit Open data Intermediaries enhance Open data Usability? A Systematic Literature Review", submitted to the 18th International Symposium on Open Collaboration (Companion), September 6–10, 2022, Madrid, Spain. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1145/3555051.3555061" target="_blank" rel="noopener">https://doi.org/10.1145/3555051.3555061</a> </p>
Is Open Data Strategy for Covid-19 used for other global health threats? A systematic review of the literature
<p>Dataset result of the literature review run between march and may 2022 on PubMed, Cinahl, Scopus and Google Scholar about open data and growing trend in scientific research about infection risk comparing Covid-19, Anti Microbial Resistance (AMR), and Health Assistance Correlated Infections (HAIs).</p>
Guidelines for Open Peer Review Implementation
<p>Background data and documents for submitted article "<strong>Guidelines for open peer review implementation</strong>", created as a result of a workshop organised by the OpenUP project 27th March 2018 in London, UK.</p> <p>Article abstract: Open peer review (OPR) is moving into the mainstream, but it is often poorly understood and surveys of researcher attitudes show important barriers to implementation. As more journals move to implement and experiment with the myriad of innovations covered by this term, there is a clear need for best practice guidelines to guide implementation. This brief article aims to address this knowledge gap, reporting work based on an interactive stakeholder workshop to create best-practice guidelines for editors and journals who wish to transition to OPR. Although the advice is aimed mainly at editors and publishers of scientific journals, since this is the area in which OPR is at its most mature, many of the principles may also be applicable for the implementation of OPR in other areas (e.g., books, conference submissions).</p> <p>Documents contained here:</p> <p>- Pre-workshop informal data-gathering</p> <p>- Workshop agenda and attendee list</p> <p>- Minutes from the Workshop session on implementation guidelines</p> <p>- Slides used to introduce the theme and begin discussion</p> <p> </p>
Dataset - A Review on Blockchain Technology and Blockchain Projects Fostering Open Science
<p>Dataset for publication (A Review on Blockchain Technology and Blockchain Projects Fostering Open Science) in "Frontiers in Blockchain" Journal: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fbloc.2019.00016/.</p>
(open) data literacy as barrier and enabler of open government data enhancement. A systematic review of the literature.
<p>This systematic review of the literatu was conducted with the PRISMA method, to explore the contexts in which the use of open government data germinates, identifying barriers to its use and identifying, the role of data literacy among those barriers to use; and the role of open data in promoting informal learning that supports the development of critical data literacy. This file includes a codebook of the main characteristics that were studied in a systematic literature review, where data from 66 articles related to Open Data Usage were identified and coded. Also, the file includes an analysis of Cohen's Kappa, a concordance statistic used to measure the level of agreement among researchers in classifying articles on the characteristics defined in the Codebook. Finally, it includes main tables of the results' analysis.</p>
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.