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.
54
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
54 results for “Research Policy”
Polidoc.net CODEBOOK: National and Regional Manifestos and other Political Documents Collected for the Research Projects "Representation in Europe: Congruence between Preferences of Elites and Voters" (REPCONG) and "The Impact of EU Cohesion Policy on European Identification" (COHESIFY)
<p>The Political Documents Archive http://www.polidoc.net/ contains election manifestos, coalition agreements, government declarations and various other documents of political actors from developed democracies. Currently, the archive builds on a stock of more than 3000 political documents from 20 European countries. The aim of the repository is to provide political texts in order to facilitate scholarly research in different areas of comparative politics such as party competition, coalition politics, legislative decision-making or electoral behavior.</p> <p>National electoral manifestos have been collected in the course of the REPCONG project ("Representation in Europe: Policy Congruence between Citizens and Elites"), and the archive includes party manifestos for regional elections in several European democracies. Because the process of European integration resulted in a strengthening of regions in EU member states and in countries that want to join the European Union, the relevance of the regional level for political decision-making has increased during the last decades. Therefore, also the policy profiles of regional parties are required to get a full picture of democratic responsiveness in European states across all levels of the political system. The collection of regional manifestos was supported by the COHESIFY project (www.cohesify.eu), funded under the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme for Research and Innovation. The aim of COHESIFY is to study whether the European Structural and Investment Funds affect people’s support for and identification with the European project.</p> <p>The archive is freely accessible (after a simple registration) and meant to foster rigorous research in these areas by enabling scholars to produce valid and reliable findings from empirical studies of textual data rather than unnecessarily struggling to obtain and process texts.</p>
Dataset for "AGU Publications updates authorship policy to foster better equity and transparency in global research collaboration"
<p>Dataset supporting "AGU Publications updates authorship policy to foster better equity and transparency in global research collaboration." </p> <p>This file provides summary data for new submissions for "Global Biogeochemical Cycles" (GBC) and "Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences" (JGR: Biogeo) from 2012 through 2023 including International Collaboration Status (whether more than one country was represented on the author list), Research4Life Author Status (whether any author was from a country on the Research4Life eligibility list [https://www.research4life.org/access/eligibility/]), and Research4Life Abstract Status (whether the submission abstract referenced a country on the Research4Life eligibility list). </p> <p>Summary data for all AGU journals combined are provided for years 2012 and 2023, including whether more than one country was represented by the author list and whether any author was from a country on the Research4Life eligibility list. </p> <p>Summary data are presented in compliance with AGU's Privacy Policy, https://www.agu.org/Privacy-Policy</p>
Navigating the complex policy landscape for carbon farming in The Netherlands and the EU -- Open Research Europe Extended Data-- Tables 1-6, Figures 1-2
<p>This is extended data for the article entitle 'Navigating the complex policy landscape for carbon farming in The Netherlands and the EU' submitted to Open Research Europe by Eise Spijker. </p>
Insights into European research funders policies and practices - public dataset
<p>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.</p> <p>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. </p>
Policies of Research Institutions Requiring Open Access Depositing
<p>ROARMAP (http://roarmap.eprints.org) has been queried for policies of research institutions which require Open Access depositing of a version of all publications authored by their researchers. This data was needed to explain some of the outcomes of a study about the proportions of Open Access publishing in the European Research Area (ERA) as well as in Brazil, Canada, Japan and the USA (Archambault et al. 2014).</p>
Open Science Policies as Regarded by the Communities of Researchers from the Basic Sciences in the Scientific Periphery: Major themes, subthemes and selected interview quotes
<p>Data annex containing major themes, subthemes and selected interview quotes of the article Open Science Policies as Regarded by the Communities of Researchers from the Basic Sciences in the Scientific Periphery.</p>
Dataset for "Tackling global challenges with coherent policies producing more researchers and diaspora engagement"
<p>A list of science policies that were published between 2002 and 2021 by the African Union, Southern African Development Community, and the Government of Zimbabwe.</p>
Innovation Systems & Policy Insight 3_2022 "Responsible Research & Innovation approach for transitioning the traditional industry regions into digitalized industry territories"
<p>In this ISP Insight Video, coordinator Marianne Hörlesberger tells you more about the EU Project DigiTeRRI which deals with a Responsible Research & Innovation Approach for transitioning the traditional industry regions into digitalised industry territories. The EU project DigiTeRRI empowers 3 traditional industry regions to harness the opportunities presented by digitalisation. The project has co-created a framework and roadmaps for a responsible transition to self-sustaining, digitalised industrial innovation ecosystems. It has worked out the challenges in the interplay between business, academia, government and society to initiate openness, democratic accountability and responsiveness in a process that will in turn promote resilience within these new, digitalised innovation ecosystems. Important attributes for this transition are also gender equality, science education, open access, public engagement, and ethics, which support both organisations and citizens in adapting the transformation that is revolutionising research, industry, economy, & society. Finally, 12 actions, based on the roadmap goals and objectives in each territory have been developed and implemented. This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement nº 873010.</p>
Dataset used in the article: Cunico, G., Aivazidou, E., Mollona, E. (2019), "European Cohesion Policy performance and citizens' awareness: A holistic System Dynamics framework", Investigaciones Regionales – Journal of Regional Research (In Press)
<p>In the context of the abovementioned article, interviews with experts about EU funding, as well as a workshop, were performed to find any missing factors or links in the conceptual model developed. This dataset provides detailed information about the interviews and the workshop. The related research is conducted in the context of the Horizon 2020 project PERCEIVE (www.perceiveproject.eu).</p>
Land Policy Research Topics in a Century: A Bibliometric Journal Publication in Scopus
<p>This data is supplementary of manuscriptt titled Land Policy Research Topics in a Century: A Bibliometric Journal Publication in Scopus</p>
Features of research data policies of Earth science and biodiversity academic society journals
<p>Dataset related to Hübner (2020) Earth science and biodiversity journals can improve support for data publication. Preprint: https://doi.org/10.23689/fidgeo-3818</p> <p>This study reviews research data policies and author instructions of 31 journals from the Earth sciences and from biodiversity that are published by German learned societies or research institutions. The statements on data publishing of the journal´s data policies / author guidelines were matched to 14 pre-defined features of journal research data policies from Hrynaszkiewicz, I. et al. (2020) Developing a Research Data Policy Framework for All Journals and Publishers. Data Science Journal, 19: 5, pp. 1–15. <a href="https://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2020-005">https://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2020-005</a>.</p>
Spatial-temporal growth, distribution, and diffusion of marine microplastic research and national plastic policies
<p>Plastic accounts for 80% of material waste in the ocean. The field of marine microplastic research is relatively new and is growing rapidly, in terms of published papers as well as institutions and countries conducting research. To combat plastic pollution, there is sufficient evidence that policies can lead to reduced plastic production and consumption both locally and globally. We aim to understand how marine plastics research and policies have grown and spread. Specifically, we used scientometric and spatial diffusion methods to best explain how ideas (in this case science and policy) clustered and spread geographically through time. We performed systematic literature searches to determine the spatial and temporal growth of marine microplastic publications and national plastic policies from 1900-2019. We found that more countries adopted national plastic policies than those that have conducted marine plastic research. Doubling times of each temporal growth rate analyzed (research paper, institution, country, and national policy) ranged from 1.1 – 4.05 years. Further, each temporal growth rate had a break point where doubling time changed significantly. Marine microplastic research has grown exponentially since 2006, and the topics of inquiry have increased steadily. Marine microplastic publication spread at the institution level is best explained by a hybrid of expansion and relocation diffusion while national plastic policy spread is best explained by expansion diffusion. Marine microplastic research activity was not a good indicator of a country's resources or motivation toward national plastic policies.</p>
Overview of Research Data Sharing Policies Across Various Scientific Publishers
<p><strong>Context </strong></p><p>With the aim of advancing trust in published research, (scientific) publishers are developing Research Data Sharing Policies for their portfolio. Some publishers have the same policy across all journals. For example for the publishers Frontiers and Springer-Nature, a Data Availability statement is mandatory for all journals in their portfolio. While other publishers have different policy levels depending on the journal (e.g. Elsevier, American Chemical Society). In this list, one will find a short overview of Research Data Sharing Policies across publishers (mostly relevant to the Faculty of Science at Utrecht University).</p><p><strong>Limitations</strong></p><p>The list of publishers does not encompass all scientific publishers. Some Research Data Sharing Policies might be subjected to change.</p>
Research software funding policies and programs: Results from an international survey (Dataset)
<p>Research software is increasingly recognized as critical infrastructure in contemporary science. Research software spans a broad spectrum, including source code files, algorithms, scripts, computational workflows, and executables, all created for or during research. Research funders have developed programs, initiatives and policies to bolster research software’s role. However, there has been no empirical study of how research funders prioritize support for research software. This information is needed to clarify where current funder support is concentrated and where strategic gaps may exist. Here, we present data from a survey of research software funders (n=36) from around the world. The survey explored these funders’ priorities, finding a strong emphasis on developing skills, software sustainability, embedding open science, building community and collaboration, advancing research software funding, increasing software visibility and use, innovation and security. </p> <h1>Methods</h1> <p>This research was carried out using a survey combining qualitative and quantitative items. The survey was designed to investigate how research software funders support research software’s sustainability and impact.</p> <p>The study was reviewed and given an exempt determination by the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Institutional Review Board (no. 24374).</p> <h2>Survey design</h2> <p>The survey designed for this study began by collecting profile information, including institutional affiliation and job title. The survey gathered information about respondents’ organization’s initiatives, policies, or programs to support research software. The range of questions yielded too much data for one article. In this article, we focus exclusively on the results generated via an open-ended question asking about the top priorities for the respondents’ organizations’ support for research software: “What are your organization's top priorities related to research software?”. Four open-response text boxes were provided for respondents to indicate and list these priorities.</p> <h2>Sampling</h2> <p>This survey was aimed at international research funders, including governmental and non-governmental (e.g., philanthropic) funders. A list of contacts to invite to participate in this survey was created based on participation in the Research Software Association (ReSA) and responsibility for research software funding known to the authors. This initial list of people was refined, with removals based on individuals having moved to unrelated professional roles or being unavailable long-term, for example, due to personal issues.</p> <p>The final, refined contact list comprised 71 people. After removing individuals when a member of their organization already provided a complete answer or when the person turned out to no longer be working on a relevant topic or to be otherwise unavailable (total of n=30), 41 people remained. Five of these individuals did not complete the survey, while 36 people (representing 30 research funding organizations) did, yielding a response rate of 87.8%. Fully completed survey responses were not required for individuals to be retained in the sample, resulting in varied sample bases across survey questions.</p> <p>The sample includes research funders in North and South America, Europe, Oceania and Asia, but over-represents North America and European funder representatives. Some participating funders cover a broad spectrum of disciplines, while others focus on a particular domain such as social science, health, environment, physical sciences or humanities.</p> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Continent</strong></p> </td> <td> <p><strong>Count</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>North America</p> </td> <td> <p>15</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>South America</p> </td> <td> <p>4</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>Europe</p> </td> <td> <p>12</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>Oceania</p> </td> <td> <p>3</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>Asia</p> </td> <td> <p>1</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <p>The respondents represented research funders supported by governmental (n=26), philanthropic (n=6) and corporate (n=1) resources.</p> <p>Respondents’ job titles span the following categories: <em>Senior Leadership and Executive</em>, such as a Vice President of Strategy; <em>Program and Project Management</em>, such as Senior Program Manager; <em>Planning and Business Development</em>; <em>Scientific, Technical and IT</em>, such as Scientific Information Lead.</p> <p>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?”, while 18.2% (n=6) said ‘No’ and 9.1% (n=3) ‘Unsure’.</p> <h2>Data collection, management and analysis</h2> <p>Data collection took place from December 2023 to May 2024. The mean completion time for the detailed survey was 28 minutes and 13 seconds.</p> <p>The data were cleaned and prepared for analysis by removing any identifiable respondent details. The data analysis process followed a standard thematic qualitative analysis approach (e.g., Jensen & Laurie, 2016). This involved first identifying themes and organizing the data accordingly. Dimensions of each theme were identified where relevant. Then data extracts were selected from the survey responses associated with each theme and theme dimension. </p> <h1>Additional data: Evolving funding strategies for research software: Insights from an international survey of research funders</h1> <p>Data were uploaded in December 2024 to support another paper drawing on the same overall survey data. This one is entitled: 'Evolving funding strategies for research software: Insights from an international survey of research funders'. The survey data for this upload were generated using the following survey items.</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> </tbody><tbody> <tr> <td> <p><span>Policies, initiatives, or programs aimed at supporting research software</span></p> </td> <td> <p><span>“Has your organization established any policies, initiatives or programs aimed at supporting research software?”<br>(This could include grants, fellowships, funding policies, conference funding, or other kinds of support aimed at bolstering the sustainability or impact of 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>Number of policies or programs to be reported</span></p> </td> <td> <p><span>“How many of your organization’s policies, initiatives or programs to support research software are you familiar with?”</span></p> </td> <td> <p><span>1, 2, 3, 4, 5+</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><em><span>The following questions were asked for each policy, initiative, or program</span></em></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><span>Name of policy or program</span></p> </td> <td> <p><span>“Please name the policy, initiative or program (starting with the one you are most familiar with):”</span></p> </td> <td> <p><span>[Text line]</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><span>Status of policy or program</span></p> </td> <td> <p><span>“What is the status of this policy, initiative or program?”</span></p> </td> <td> <p><span>Completed/closed, In progress/open, Other (please specify)</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><span>Link(s)/description</span></p> </td> <td> <p><span>“Please provide link(s) to the policy, initiative or program, upload or email to [the researcher’s contact details].”<br>“Link(s)/Description:”<br>(If there is no documentation available, please describe it here:)</span></p> </td> <td> <p><span>[Textarea], [File upload]</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><span>Type of policy or program</span></p> </td> <td> <p><span>“Which of the following best describes the policy, initiative or program you named above?”</span></p> </td> <td> <p><a name="_Hlk180534652"></a><span>Funding program, Policy that affects funding decision-making or outcomes (funder side), Policy that affects funding applicants or recipients (applicant/awardee side), Other (please specify)</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><em><span>If ‘Funding program’ was selected in the previous question, then the next question was asked</span></em></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><span>Type of funding</span></p> </td> <td> <p><span>“Which of the following best describes the available funding?”</span></p> </td> <td> <p><span>Funding that <strong>includes</strong> research software, Dedicated funding <strong>only</strong> for research software, Other (please specify)</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><em><span>For all categories of policy, initiative or program, the following questions were asked.</span></em></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><span>Problem(s) addressed</span></p> </td> <td> <p><span>“Please summarize the problem(s) this policy, initiative or program is aiming to address from your organization’s perspective:”</span></p> </td> <td> <p><span>[Text Area]</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><span>Perceived level of program success</span></p> </td> <td> <p><span>“What factors have contributed to its success or lack of success?”</span></p> </td> <td> <p><span>Very successful, Successful, Neutral, Unsuccessful, Very unsuccessful, Not applicable / No opinion</span></p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table>
Evaluation of the Research to Policy Collaboration Model
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT03671434. IPD Sharing: YES. Countries: 2. Publications: 2.
Spatial-temporal growth, distribution, and diffusion of marine microplastic research and national plastic policies
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data of the article "Journal research data sharing policies: a study of highly-cited journals in neuroscience, physics, and operations research"
<p>The journals’ author guidelines and/or editorial policies were examined on whether they take a stance with regard to the availability of the underlying data of the submitted article. The mere explicated possibility of providing supplementary material along with the submitted article was not considered as a research data policy in the present study. Furthermore, the present article excluded source codes or algorithms from the scope of the paper and thus policies related to them are not included in the analysis of the present article.</p> <p>For selection of journals within the field of neurosciences, Clarivate Analytics’ InCites Journal Citation Reports database was searched using categories of neurosciences and neuroimaging. From the results, journals with the 40 highest Impact Factor (for the year 2017) indicators were extracted for scrutiny of research data policies. Respectively, the selection journals within the field of physics was created by performing a similar search with the categories of physics, applied; physics, atomic, molecular & chemical; physics, condensed matter; physics, fluids & plasmas; physics, mathematical; physics, multidisciplinary; physics, nuclear and physics, particles & fields. From the results, journals with the 40 highest Impact Factor indicators were again extracted for scrutiny. Similarly, the 40 journals representing the field of operations research were extracted by using the search category of operations research and management. </p> <p>Journal-specific data policies were sought from journal specific websites providing journal specific author guidelines or editorial policies. Within the present study, the examination of journal data policies was done in May 2019. The primary data source was journal-specific author guidelines. If journal guidelines explicitly linked to the publisher’s general policy with regard to research data, these were used in the analyses of the present article. If journal-specific research data policy, or lack of, was inconsistent with the publisher’s general policies, the journal-specific policies and guidelines were prioritized and used in the present article’s data. If journals’ author guidelines were not openly available online due to, e.g., accepting submissions on an invite-only basis, the journal was not included in the data of the present article. Also journals that exclusively publish review articles were excluded and replaced with the journal having the next highest Impact Factor indicator so that each set representing the three field of sciences consisted of 40 journals. The final data thus consisted of 120 journals in total. </p> <p>‘Public deposition’ refers to a scenario where researcher deposits data to a public repository and thus gives the administrative role of the data to the receiving repository. ‘Scientific sharing’ refers to a scenario where researcher administers his or her data locally and by request provides it to interested reader. Note that none of the journals examined in the present article required that all data types underlying a submitted work should be deposited into a public data repositories. However, some journals required public deposition of data of specific types. Within the journal research data policies examined in the present article, these data types are well presented by the Springer Nature policy on “Availability of data, materials, code and protocols” (Springer Nature, 2018), that is, DNA and RNA data; protein sequences and DNA and RNA sequencing data; genetic polymorphisms data; linked phenotype and genotype data; gene expression microarray data; proteomics data; macromolecular structures and crystallographic data for small molecules. Furthermore, the registration of clinical trials in a public repository was also considered as a data type in this study. The term <em>specific data types</em> used in the custom coding framework of the present study thus refers to both life sciences data and public registration of clinical trials. These data types have community-endorsed public repositories where deposition was most often mandated within the journals’ research data policies.</p> <p>The term ‘location’ refers to whether the journal’s data policy provides suggestions or requirements for the repositories or services used to share the underlying data of the submitted works. A mere general reference to ‘public repositories’ was not considered a location suggestion, but only references to individual repositories and services. The category of ‘immediate release of data’ examines whether the journals’ research data policy addresses the timing of publication of the underlying data of submitted works. Note that even though the journals may only encourage public deposition of the data, the editorial processes could be set up so that it leads to either publication of the research data or the research data metadata in conjunction to publishing of the submitted work.<em> </em></p> <p> </p>
Figure 3 from: Ziv G, Beckmann M, Bullock J, Cord A, Delzeit R, Domingo C, Dreßler G, Hagemann N, Masó J, Müller B, Neteler M, Sapundzhieva A, Stoev P, Stenning J, Trajković M, Václavík T (2020) BESTMAP: behavioural, Ecological and Socio-economic Tools for Modelling Agricultural Policy. Research Ideas and Outcomes 6: e52052. https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.6.e52052
Figure 3 The Land Systems Archetypes mapped by Levers et al. (2018) for one of BESTMAP case study areas in Catalonia. Land Systems Archetypes were derived at 3km resolution for Europe based on CORINE land cover, downscaled ecological and economic data. BESTMAP aims to map Farming System Archetypes (FSAs) at the farm level.
Figure 7 from: Ziv G, Beckmann M, Bullock J, Cord A, Delzeit R, Domingo C, Dreßler G, Hagemann N, Masó J, Müller B, Neteler M, Sapundzhieva A, Stoev P, Stenning J, Trajković M, Václavík T (2020) BESTMAP: behavioural, Ecological and Socio-economic Tools for Modelling Agricultural Policy. Research Ideas and Outcomes 6: e52052. https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.6.e52052
Figure 7 BESTMAP workflow to map FSAs, defined as having a characteristic bundle of ESS (and dis-services e.g. pollution), biodiversity, socio-economic and behavioural characteristics. Geospatial datasets (the Case Study Base Layer) will be used to approximate these FSAs (the "Proto-FSAs" clusters) in the first step; followed by interviews, field data collection and modelling to assign values on ESS, biodiversity, socio-economic aspects and behaviour for a stratified sample of proto-FSAs farms. The proto-FSAs will likely share "socio-economic-environmental" space and will be split/merged to minimize (but not eliminate) that overlap by changing the clustering in Case Study Base Layer space, defining the final FSAs and their spatial distribution.
Figure 9 from: Ziv G, Beckmann M, Bullock J, Cord A, Delzeit R, Domingo C, Dreßler G, Hagemann N, Masó J, Müller B, Neteler M, Sapundzhieva A, Stoev P, Stenning J, Trajković M, Václavík T (2020) BESTMAP: behavioural, Ecological and Socio-economic Tools for Modelling Agricultural Policy. Research Ideas and Outcomes 6: e52052. https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.6.e52052
Figure 9 BESTMAP dashboard mock-up, visualizing the impact of the policies through the policy indicators.
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.