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.
178
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
178 results for “Research Practices”
Quantitative Assessment of Research Data Management Practices - 2023
<p>This survey investigates <strong>Research Data Management (RDM) practices across five Swiss higher education institutions</strong>, including EPFL, ETH Zürich, Eawag, FHNW, and DaSCH, with the goal of gathering insights into how researchers manage data and code throughout the lifecycle of their projects, as well as using such findings to inform academic services related to RDM for researchers. Previous surveys, conducted at EPFL in 2017, 2019, and 2021, primarily focused on the planning and publishing stages of the research data lifecycle, such as data management planning and open data dissemination. The 2023 edition expanded to other institutes and places a stronger emphasis on <strong>Active Data Management</strong>, particularly during research projects, including a range of topics such as:</p> <ul> <li>Storage and backup solutions</li> <li>Data and code sharing platforms</li> <li>Documentation and metadata usage</li> <li>Compliance with legal and ethical standards</li> <li>Long-term data preservation strategies</li> <li>Use of open formats and open-source software</li> <li>Adoption of Data Management Plans (DMPs)</li> </ul> <p>This dataset was collected using the SurveyHero platform in compliance with GDPR and Swiss FADP regulations. enuvo GmbH acted as the data processor under a signed Data Processing Agreement. No personal identifiable information was purposefully collected, and data has been aggregated to further ensure respondents’ privacy.</p> <p>Included in this dataset:</p> <ul> <li>A CSV and XLSX file with the aggregated, anonymized data from the survey.</li> <li>Two PDF files containing graphical representations of the survey results, automatically generated by the SurveyHero platform in portrait and landscape mode.</li> <li>A README file providing context.</li> </ul> <p>This dataset is made openly available under the CC-BY 4.0 license. Users are encouraged to reuse it with appropriate attribution.</p>
Is the winner really the best? A critical analysis of common research practice in biomedical image analysis competitions
<p>This data set corresponds to the paper: Is the winner really the best? A critical analysis of common research practice in biomedical image analysis competitions [1] (Experiment: Comprehensive reporting).</p> <p>The key research questions corresponding to this data set were:</p> <p>RQ1: What is the role of challenges for the field of biomedical image analysis (e.g. How many challenges conducted to date? In which fields? For which algorithm categories? Based on which modalities?)</p> <p>RQ2: What is common practice related to challenge design (e.g. choice of metric(s) and ranking methods, number of training/test images, annotation practice etc.)? Are there common standards?</p> <p>RQ3: Does common practice related to challenge reporting allow for reproducibility and adequate interpretation of results?</p> <p>To address these research questions, we aimed to capture all biomedical image analysis challenges that have been conducted up to 2016. To acquire the data, we analyzed the websites hosting/representing biomedical image analysis challenges, namely grand-challenge.org, dreamchallenges.org and kaggle.com as well as websites of main conferences in the field of biomedical image analysis, namely Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention (MICCAI), International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI), International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE) Medical Imaging, Cross Language Evaluation Forum (CLEF), International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR), The American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM), the Single Molecule Localization Microscopy Symposium (SMLMS) and the BioImage Informatics Conference (BII). This yielded a list of 150 challenges with 549 tasks.</p> <p>Next, a tool for instantiating the challenge parameter list introduced in [1] was used by some of the authors (engineers and medical student) to formalize all challenges that met our inclusion criteria as follows: (1) Initially, each challenge was independently formalized by two different observers. (2) The formalization results were automatically compared. In ambiguous cases, when the observers could not agree on the instantiation of a parameter - a third observer was consulted, and a decision was made. When refinements to the parameter list were made, the process was repeated for missing values. Based on the formalized challenge data set, a descriptive statistical analysis was performed to characterize common practice related to challenge design and reporting.</p> <p>[1] Maier-Hein, L., Eisenmann, M., Reinke, A., Onogur, S., Stankovic, M., Scholz, P., Arbel, T., Bogunovic, H., Bradley, A. P., Carass, A., Feldmann, C., Frangi, A. F., Full, P. M., van Ginneken, B., Hanbury, A., Honauer, K., Kozubek, M., Landman, B. A., März, K., Maier, O., Maier-Hein, K., Menze, B. H., Müller, H., Neher, P. F., Niessen, W., Rajpoot, N., Sharp, G. C., Sirinukunwattana, K., Speidel, S., Stock, C., Stoyanov, D., Aziz Taha, A., van der Sommen, F., Wang, C.-W., Weber, M.-A., Zheng, G., Jannin, P., Kopp-Schneider, A.: Is the winner really the best? A critical analysis of common research practice in biomedical image analysis competitions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.02051 (2018).</p>
Quantitative assessment of research data management practice - University of Bordeaux
<p>This survey was run at the University of Bordeaux in January 2019 using the questionnaire "Quantitative assessment of research data management practice" :</p> <p>Teperek, M., Krause, J., Lambeng, N., Blumer, E., van Dijck, J., Eggermont, R., … der Velden, Y. T. (2019). Quantitative assessment of research data management practice. Retrieved from : <a href="https://osf.io/mz3fx/">https://osf.io/mz3fx/</a></p> <p>The questionnaire included all the primary and secondary common questions, institution-specific questions regarding services and file sharing (EPFL questions), institution-specific questions for profile information.</p> <p>Data from the 425 responses collected are published here.</p> <p>Details regarding data collection and curation are included in the README file.</p> <p> </p>
OpenUP survey on researchers' current perceptions and practices in peer review, impact measurement and dissemination of research results
<p>OpenUP project (http://openup-h2020.eu/) conducted a survey to capture current perceptions and practices in peer review, dissemination of research results and impact measurement among European researchers. The survey was coducted between 20 January and 23 February 2017. It consisted of four sections. The first section asked a series of questions on the respondents’ scientific discipline, career stage, gender and other characteristics. The following sections asked a series of questions on peer review practices, dissemination of research results and impact measurement/use of altmetrics. The questionnaire was collaboratively prepared by the OpenUP consortium. </p> <p>The survey was implemented via surveygizmo tool (https://www.surveygizmo.com/). Invitations to participate were sent to a random sample of researchers from arXiv, Pubmed and RePEc. The OpenUP team mined researchers’ contact details from these platforms. The OpenUP project team made efforts to further boost the repondent sample for certain underrepresented areas through the DARIAH website, THESIS network, EURODOC, AIMS portal, the Parthenos community and other channels. The survey targeted researchers from the EU-28, Switzerland and Norway. The goal was to get around 1,000 responses. In total, there were 976 completed response and completion rate was 72.4%. </p> <p>The attached documents include the questionnaire and the dataset. In the dataset (cvs file) the top row contains numbered questions that correspond to the numberring in the questionnaire (word file). The data was exported as an excel file, anonymised by creating respondent IDs and IP data were deleted. The file was then converted to CSV.</p> <p> </p>
Impact of Software Engineering Research in Practice: A Patent and Author Survey Analysis
<p>Dataset of the research paper: <strong>Impact of Software Engineering Research in Practice: A Patent and Author Survey Analysis</strong></p> <p>Existing work on the practical impact of software engineering (SE) research examines industrial relevance rather than adoption of study results, hence the question of how results have been practically applied remains open. To answer this and investigate the outcomes of impactful research, we performed a quantitative and qualitative analysis of 4 354 SE patents citing 1 690 SE papers published in four leading SE venues between 1975–2017. Moreover, we conducted a survey on 475 authors of 593 top-cited and awarded publications, achieving 26% response rate. Overall, researchers have equipped practitioners with various tools, processes, and methods, and improved many existing products. SE practice values knowledge-seeking research and is impacted by diverse cross-disciplinary SE areas. Practitioner-oriented publication venues appear more impactful than researcher-oriented ones, while industry-related tracks in conferences could enhance their impact. Some research works did not reach a wide footprint due to limited funding resources or unfavorable cost-benefit trade-off of the proposed solutions. The need for higher SE research funding could be corroborated through a dedicated empirical study. In general, the assessment of impact is subject to its definition. Therefore, academia and industry could jointly agree on a formal description to set a common ground for subsequent research on the topic.</p> <p>The following data files are included.</p> <ul> <li><em>./fields</em>: <ul> <li><strong>engi-fields.csv</strong>: Publication and PhD dissertation counts of main engineering branches</li> <li><strong>engi-fields-queries.txt</strong>: Queries applied to Elsevier's Scopus and Open Access Theses and Dissertations databases to retrieve the publication and dissertation counts</li> </ul> </li> <li><em>./patents</em>: <ul> <li><strong>sample-se-references-verified.csv</strong>: Manual verification of a random sample of references by software engineering (SE) patents to SE papers</li> <li><strong>se-cpc.tsv</strong>: Manually-identified SE-related Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) categories</li> <li><strong>se-references-in-patents.csv</strong>: SE references made by SE patents to SE papers</li> <li><em>./patents/litigation</em>: <ul> <li><strong>case-values.csv</strong>: Manually-retrieved litigation damages of citing SE patents</li> <li><strong>lit-per-paper.csv</strong>: Litigation cases of citing SE patents</li> </ul> </li> <li><em>./patents/maintenance</em>: <ul> <li><strong>maint-code-fee-mapping.csv</strong>: Mapping of patent maintenance fee codes to their fee values</li> <li><strong>maint-fees.csv</strong>: Fee values of maintenance fee codes</li> <li><strong>maint-per-paper.csv</strong>: Maintenance fee events of citing SE patents</li> </ul> </li> <li><em>./patents/reports</em>: <ul> <li><strong>lit-sum-per-paper.csv</strong>: Counts and total damages of litigation cases of patent-cited SE papers</li> <li><strong>maint-sum-per-paper.csv</strong>: Counts and total values of maintenance fee events of patent-cited SE papers</li> <li><strong>patent-ref-counts.csv</strong>: SE patent citation counts of patent-cited SE papers</li> </ul> </li> </ul> </li> <li><em>./survey</em>: <ul> <li><strong>emse-top.csv</strong>: Most-cited papers of the Empirical Software Engineering (EMSE) journal</li> <li><strong>icse-bp.csv</strong>: Distinguished papers of the International Conference of Software Engineering (ICSE)</li> <li><strong>icse-mip.csv</strong>: Most influential ICSE papers</li> <li><strong>icse-top.csv</strong>: Most-cited ICSE papers</li> <li><strong>survey-questionnaire-emse.pdf</strong>: The EMSE survey questionnaire</li> <li><strong>survey-questionnaire.pdf</strong>: The ICSE, TSE, and TOSEM survey questionnaire</li> <li><strong>survey-responses.csv</strong>: The anonymized survey responses</li> <li><strong>tosem-top.csv</strong>: Most-cited papers of the ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM)</li> <li><strong>tse-top.csv</strong>: Most-cited papers of the IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering (TSE)</li> <li><em>./survey/manual-coding</em>: <ul> <li><strong>feedback.txt</strong>: Manual coding of survey feedback</li> <li><strong>practical-impact.csv</strong>: Manual coding of responses about practical impact of work</li> <li><strong>practical-impact-lack.csv</strong>: Manual coding of responses about lack of practical impact</li> <li><strong>research-methods.csv</strong>: Manual coding of additional research methods of surveyed papers</li> <li><strong>state-of-practice.csv</strong>: Manual coding of responses about changes in state of practice</li> </ul> </li> </ul> </li> <li><em>./venues</em>: <ul> <li><strong>se-venues.csv</strong>: Top SE venues according to Google Scholar Metrics</li> <li><strong>se-venues-impact.csv</strong>: SE patent citations and patent-based impact factors of SE venues</li> <li><strong>se-venues-scopus-queries.txt</strong>: Queries applied to Scopus to retrieve the publication counts of the SE venues</li> </ul> </li> </ul>
Quantitative assessment of research data management practice
<p>This survey aims to investigate research data management practices in academic institutions. The survey comprises questions common to all institutions as well as institution-specific ones. Common questions were drafted in the frame of a collaboration between several RDM services: Tu Delft (team effort), EPFL (team effort), University of Cambridge (notably Marta Busse) and University of Illinois (notably Heidi Imker). The first survey was run by TU Delft and EPFL only end of 2017. In total, 1263 responses where collected (680 from TU Delft, 235 from EPFL and 348 from the University of Cambridge) and are published here. The results of each institution are provided in Microsoft Excel 2007 (XLSX) format. Consolidated results are provided in CSV format</p> <p>The first lines of the CSV file contains the question asked to researchers. Each further line contains the response of a researcher; answers to institution-specific questions are set to N/A for researchers of the other institutions. Column delimiters are commas(,), quote chars are double-quotes (") and subfield separators are semi-columns (;). The text encoding is UTF-8.</p> <p>More information about this survey as well as the exact survey questions and a detailed description how the survey might be re-used by other institutions is available on the project page on the Open Science Framework: htts://osf.io/mz3fx/ For any questions contact datastewards@tudelft.nl or researchdata@epfl.ch</p>
Evaluating Open Science Practices in Indoor Positioning and Indoor Navigation Research (Supplementary Material: Full Paper Listing and Analysis)
<p>Supplementary material of the paper:</p> <p>Title: "Evaluating Open Science Practices in Indoor Positioning and Indoor Navigation Research"<br>Subtitle: "A Survey of the IPIN's Reference Papers of 2022 and 2023 Editions"</p> <p>The paper is accepted to the "14th International Conference on Indoor Positioning and Indoor Navigation, IPIN 2024, Hong Kong, October 14-17, 2024, IEEE, 2024.</p> <p>An Author's accepted version of the manuscript is available here: <a href="../records/13684170" target="_blank" rel="noopener">https://zenodo.org/records/13684170</a> </p> <p>If you want to refer to this work, please cite this Zenodo entry as well as the published conference version.</p> <p> </p> <p>---------------------------------------</p> <p>This entry contains two files:</p> <ul> <li>"Paper Characterization Spreadsheet.xlsx": <strong>The spreadsheet of the full analysis of this work</strong>, as described in the paper. It characterizes various features of the analyzed papers and forms the raw data on which the analyses of our work were based.</li> <li>"Main features of the manuscripts analysed in Zenodo Record #12088175.pdf": A document summarizing the main features of the IPIN's Reference Papers of the 2022 and 2023 Editions, that contain some form of open resources (Open Data, Code, or Material).</li> </ul> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p>
Data From: Toward a Better Data Management Plan: The Impact of DMPs on Grant Funded Research Practices
<p>Researchers from Montana State University analyzed 186 National Science Foundation (NSF) data management plans, using the Data Management Plans As a Research Tool (DART) rubric.</p>
Dataset from: Reporting of patient involvement: A mixed-methods analysis of current practice in health research publications
<p>This record includes the data associated with the study "Reporting of patient involvement: A mixed-methods analysis of current practice in health research publications". In this study, we evaluated the extent and quality of patient involvement reporting in examples of current practice in health research. We used a targeted search strategy to identify publications that report on patient involvement using the following three samples:</p> <ul> <li>Publications published in 2019 in <em>The BMJ, </em>which requires reporting on patient involvement in research articles</li> <li>Publications listed in the PCORI database. We filtered for topic: example of engagement in health research; stakeholder involvement: patients; year: 2019</li> <li>Publications citing the <a href="https://www.bmj.com/content/358/bmj.j3453">GRIPP2 reporting checklist</a> or a <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1369-7625.2010.00607.x">critical appraisal guideline to assess the quality and impact of user involvement in research</a></li> </ul> <p>After applying our inclusion and exclusion criteria, the final sample consisted of 87 publications that reported on patient involvement. Included publications were coded according to three coding schemes.</p> <p>This deposit includes the following:</p> <ul> <li>Overview of publications that did not meet our inclusion criteria across all 3 samples (BMJ, PCORI, and citation)</li> <li>Overview of publications and additional documents (if applicable) that met our inclusion criteria across all 3 samples (BMJ, PCORI, and citation)</li> <li>Coded segments and analysis for the coding scheme "Phase of involvement" across all 3 samples (BMJ, PCORI, and citation). This includes the count of each sub-code across publications and the final results table. </li> <li>Coded segments and analysis for the coding scheme "GRIPP2-SF reporting guidelines according to Staniszewska et al., 2017" across all 3 samples (BMJ, PCORI, and citation). This includes the count of each sub-code across publications and the final results table.</li> <li>Coded segments and analysis for the coding scheme "Critical appraisal tool according to Wright et al., (2010)" across all 3 samples (BMJ, PCORI, and citation). This includes the count of each sub-code across publications and the final results table.</li> </ul>
FAIR Data Practices in Europe infographic (European Research Data Landscape study)
<p>Infographic of the findings on on FAIR data practices in Europe, part of the European Research Data Landscape study.</p>
How to Ensure Researchers Share Their FAIR Data: Practical Tips and Tools [Online Workshop, Recording]
<p>The online hands-on workshop was aimed at trainers and support staff covering critical elements of data sharing and available tools and resources for supporting Open Science including:<br> • Open Science resources and Data Management Planning<br> • Consent and Ethical considerations<br> • Legislation and Licence frameworks<br> The objectives of the workshop were i) to raise awareness of key tools and resources available for Open Science training ii) to enable a platform to exchange ideas regarding key training topics and iii)n to provide training materials and worksheets for future reuse.<br> The workshop consisted of presentations, demos, a roundtable discussion on ethical considerations, a showcase of licence frameworks at different European archives and an exercise with all participants fostering an exchange of experiences focused on learnt lessons.</p> <p>The video is available on<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uztTCRFRZHg"> the CESSDA Training YouTube channel</a>.</p>
Rapid Review Dataset for Seeking Enlightenment: Incorporating Evidence-Based Practice Techniques in a Research Software Engineering Team
<p>A collection of evidence briefings produced through a rapid literature review protocol the Department of Software Engineering and Research at Sandia National Laboratories. These briefings are described in our research paper, "Seeking Enlightenment: Incorporating Evidence-Based Practice Techniques in a Research Software Engineering Team", which was accepted for publication at the 1st Annual Conference of the United States Research Software Engineer Association (US-RSE'23).</p> <p>Sandia National Laboratories is a multimission laboratory managed and operated by National Technology & Engineering Solutions of Sandia, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Honeywell International Inc., for the U.S. Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration under contract DE-NA0003525. SAND2023-06549O.</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>
A Questionnaire to Assess the Research Practices and Services Related to the Academic and Research Staff at the Institutions of Higher Education in Palestine - Survey Data
<p>Data generated as part of a needs assessment survey conducted as part of ROMOR, a project funded by the Erasmus Plus Programme of the European Union in the period from October 2016 to October 2019. A questionnaire was prepared under the supervision of Palestinian Universities participating in the project. The results of the study will be used to create and develop institutional repositories to store the digital outputs of scientific research at the institutions of higher education in Palestine. The results will be also used to provide the vocational and academic training, and the institutional policies required to manage, organize the use, and populate the prospective repositories. This objective will contribute in promoting the access to and benefit of the results of scientific research in Palestine, and increase its impact at the local and international levels. This questionnaire was distributed to the representative of each institution, who in turn forwarded it to the suitable persons in the institution. Data was collected between January 4th and February 19th 2017. Paper and electronic versions of a questionnaire were prepared in both Arabic and English. The project coordinators at partner PS HEIs were requested to circulate the electronic questionnaire to all researchers and members of academic staff. Data was collected by ROMOR partners at:</p> ● The Islamic University of Gaza (IUG) ● Al-Quds Open University (QOU) ● Birzeit University (BZU) ● Palestine Technical University-Kadoori (KAD)
A Questionnaire to Assess the Research Practices and Services Related to the Academic and Research Staff at the Institutions of Higher Education in Palestine - Survey Data with Pie Charts
<p>Data generated as part of a needs assessment survey conducted as part of ROMOR, a project funded by the Erasmus Plus Programme of the European Union in the period from October 2016 to October 2019. A questionnaire was prepared under the supervision of Palestinian Universities participating in the project. The results of the study will be used to create and develop institutional repositories to store the digital outputs of scientific research at the institutions of higher education in Palestine. The results will be also used to provide the vocational and academic training, and the institutional policies required to manage, organize the use, and populate the prospective repositories. This objective will contribute in promoting the access to and benefit of the results of scientific research in Palestine, and increase its impact at the local and international levels. This questionnaire was distributed to the representative of each institution, who in turn forwarded it to the suitable persons in the institution. Data was collected between January 4th and February 19th 2017. Paper and electronic versions of a questionnaire were prepared in both Arabic and English. The project coordinators at partner PS HEIs were requested to circulate the electronic questionnaire to all researchers and members of academic staff. Data was collected by ROMOR partners at:</p> <p>● The Islamic University of Gaza (IUG)</p> <p>● Al-Quds Open University (QOU)</p> <p>● Birzeit University (BZU)</p> <p>● Palestine Technical University-Kadoori (KAD)</p> <p>[Data visualised as pie charts]</p> <p> </p>
Results of user research project to understand data curation practices
<p>Supporting scalable curation is a part of the mission of the Elixir Data Platform.Thus far, we have established infrastructure capable of ingesting and aggregating text-mined outputs from multiple providers and making these available via an API. This public API is used by Europe PMC to display specific entities and relationships on full text articles (via the SciLite application). To ensure that the future development of this infrastructure meets the needs of curators, we first carried out user research to understand and identify common workflow patterns and practices via an observational study. Building on these outcomes, we then devised a curator community survey to more specifically understand which entity types, sections of a paper and tools are of top priority to address. The results of the project is presented here.</p>
Research integrity practices and environmental impact of research: Questionnaire of the survey conducted at two French institutions
<p>This dataset is a questionnaire designed to evaluate researchers' understanding, application, and perception of responsible research principles, and to identify strengths and weaknesses in their implementation.<br>It contains about thirty questions and covers various and sometimes complex topics: responsible and inclusive research practices, public trust in science, climate crisis, reduction of GHG emissions caused by research activities, research integrity, researchers' engagement in the public sphere.</p> <p>It is divided into 6 sections:<br>- Relations between science and society <br>- Conducting research in a changing world <br>- Ethics and research integrity <br>- Engaged research <br>- Science communication </p> <p>To enable comparative analysis, it incorporates questions from other surveys which are cited as references.</p>
Structure of the complete review matrix developed in the context of the "Reviewing Computational Thinking in Compulsory Education: State of Play and Practices from the Field" research study
<p>This is the structure of the complete review matrix used to analyse in-depth <strong>98 selected publications from between 2016 and 2021 </strong>in the context of the "<a href="https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC128347">Reviewing Computational Thinking in Compulsory Education: State of Play and</a> <a href="https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC128347"> Practices from the Field</a>" research study. The <a href="https://computhink2study.eu/">study </a>was designed, funded, and followed by the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC) to investigate <strong>how Computational Thinking (CT) is currently positioned within compulsory school education in Europe’s various Member States, as well as outside the EU</strong>. The study was carried out from April to December 2021 by the Institute for Educational Technology of the Italian National Research Council (CNR-ITD), together with European Schoolnet (EUN) and Vilnius University (VU).</p>
The systematization of pre-professional practice and its articulation with research skills
<p>This article presents a study on the systematization of pre-professional practice and aims to outline a theoretical-methodological model based on the Oscar Jara proposal, contributions from Neuroscience and Critical-Complex Thinking; to publicize the results of the evaluation of the systematization processes, their level of efficiency, and their articulation with the research skills in 1,150 students from four universities and a pedagogical institute in Peru; and finally, to socialize the results of the application of the model in experimentation in 289 students of said population. The methodology used descriptive-correlative and experimental designs, with data collection through a virtual survey and an evaluation rubric. The results evidenced the precarious level of systematization and investigative capacity, the relationship between both variables, and the impact of the application of the model in an experimental group. Therefore, expanding spaces during pre-professional practice in institutions is recommended to generate an efficient systematization that guarantees the development of research skills in students and prepares them to carry out their research work.</p>
Data sharing: an integral part of research practice? Codebook
<p>List of thematic codes for qualitative review of studies focusing on data sharing motives and barriers.</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.