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.
7
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
7 results for “Reporting transparency”
Dataset from paper: "Mind the Gap: Reconciling tropical forest carbon flux estimates from Earth Observation and National Reporting requires transparency"
<p>This repository contains the processed data used in the publication of Heinrich et al., 2023 (Mind the Gap: Reconciling tropical forest carbon flux estimates from Earth Observation and National Reporting requires transparency). Carbon Balance and Management: https://cbmjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13021-023-00240-2 </p><p>When using this data, full reference to the raw data publications and the publication Heinrich et al., 2023 must be made.</p><p>The raw datasets used in this study are all available from their original sources.</p><p> </p>
Dataset of "Assessment of transparency and selective reporting of interventional trials studying colorectal cancer"
<p>This is the dataset used for our work "Assessment of transparency and selective reporting of interventional trials studying colorectal cancer". </p> <p>Trials included were identified through ClinicalTrials.gov.</p> <p>This dataset is presented in the form of an excel sheet with each line corresponding to a different trial (NCT number).</p>
Data and R Script from: The ancestor of sharks and rays laid eggs, but ancestral state reconstructions need empirically supported traits and transparent reporting
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Snakemake report for manuscript "Orthanq: transparent and uncertainty-aware haplotype quantification with application in HLA-typing"
<p>For viewing the report, unzip the file and open index.html in your browser.</p>
Data from: A call for more transparent reporting of error rates: the quality of AFLP data in ecological and evolutionary research
Despite much discussion of the importance of quantifying and reporting genotyping error in molecular studies, it is still not standard practice in the literature. This is particularly a concern for amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) studies, where differences in laboratory, peak-calling and locus-selection protocols can generate data sets varying widely in genotyping error rate, the number of loci used and potentially estimates of genetic diversity or differentiation. In our experience, papers rarely provide adequate information on AFLP reproducibility, making meaningful comparisons among studies difficult. To quantify the extent of this problem, we reviewed the current molecular ecology literature (470 recent AFLP articles) to determine the proportion of studies that report an error rate and follow established guidelines for assessing error. Fifty-four per cent of recent articles do not report any assessment of data set reproducibility. Of those studies that do claim to have assessed reproducibility, the majority (~90%) either do not report a specific error rate or do not provide sufficient details to allow the reader to judge whether error was assessed correctly. Even of the papers that do report an error rate and provide details, many (≥23%) do not follow recommended standards for quantifying error. These issues also exist for other marker types such as microsatellites, and next-generation sequencing techniques, particularly those which use restriction enzymes for fragment generation. Therefore, we urge all researchers conducting genotyping studies to estimate and more transparently report genotyping error using existing guidelines and encourage journals to enforce stricter standards for the publication of genotyping studies.
Data from: A call for more transparent reporting of error rates: the quality of AFLP data in ecological and evolutionary research
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Clinical trial transparency: a reassessment of industry compliance with clinical trial registration and reporting requirements in the United States
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
ScienceDex guides
Understand access before you commit
These curated guides explain access requirements, typical timelines, costs, and reuse considerations for widely used research datasets.
Allen Brain Atlas
Allen Brain Atlas is an Allen Institute collection of brain map atlases, datasets, APIs, and analysis tools covering mouse, human, and non-human primate brain resources.
Annotated Behaviour and Observability Dataset (ABODe)
ABODe is a University of Edinburgh DataShare dataset for behavior classification in group-housed mice using home-cage video, identities, bounding boxes, ground-plate positions, and annotator labels.
DANDI Archive for NWB datasets
DANDI is a BRAIN Initiative archive for publishing and sharing neurophysiology data, including electrophysiology, optophysiology, and behavioral data packaged as NWB and related standards.
International Brain Laboratory public data
The International Brain Laboratory public data releases expose standardized mouse decision-making experiments, including Neuropixels recordings, widefield calcium imaging, behavior, and session metadata accessed through the ONE API.
OpenNeuro
OpenNeuro is a free, open platform for sharing neuroimaging datasets, with public search, dataset pages, and download paths for web, S3, DataLad, and the OpenNeuro CLI.