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.
26
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
26 results for “Research question”
Publishing Reproducible Research Outputs - Interviewees and interview questions
<p>The table '<strong>Interview questions</strong>' shows the focus of our investigation and stakeholder engagement activities. It should be noted that not all interview questions were asked to all stakeholder groups based on appropriateness and time available. Some questions in the table may appear to be repeated: this is because slightly different phrasing was used based on the stakeholder interviewed.</p> <p>Legend:</p> <ul> <li>Research Funding Organisations: RFO</li> <li>Research Performing Organisations: RPO</li> <li>Infrastructure Providers: IP </li> <li>Academic Publishers: AP</li> <li>Researchers and research groups: RRG</li> </ul> <p>The table '<strong>List of interviewees</strong>' includes all stakeholders engaged in the context of this research.</p>
Online Real-Time Delphi Survey for the research project "MENARA" - Compilation of all Comments to Closed and Open Questions
<p><strong>Looking into the Futures: Delphi Survey about the MENA region</strong></p> <p>In order to get a more realistic overview of the situation and trends, of the potentials, problems and potentials of the countries of the MENA region a Real Time Delphi survey was conducted. This is an important tool of modern future research. It was managed by the IZT- Institute for Future Studies in Berlin. A group of 139 experts and researchers from different institutes and organizations were invited to participate at the Online Real-Time Delphi Survey (RTD) about possible and likely futures of the MENA region. The experts were asked to answer questions and provide their opinions on twelve topics such as social unrest, youth unemployment, urbanization, gender equality, security etc. In this dataset all comments to the closed and the open questions are compiled.</p> <p>The output was one of the basic material used for the creation of future regional scenarios for mid-term (2025) and long-term (2050) time horizons. Focus scenarios were produced in order to exemplify selected characteristic and important future options, in terms of chances and risks (e.g. energy futures).</p>
Research Artefact: What network simulator questions do users ask? a large-scale study of stack overflow posts
<p><strong>Research Artefact: What network simulator questions do users ask? a large-scale study of stack overflow posts</strong></p> <p>This is a research artefact for the paper: <strong>What network simulator questions do users ask? a large-scale study of stack overflow posts</strong>. This artefact is a repository consisting of the collected dataset including 2,322 network-simulator-related Stack Overflow questions. This artefact aims to enable researchers to replicate our dataset of the paper and reuse the dataset for further research.</p>
COMPEL Research Questions
<p>This displays the aims of my project COMPEL - Costs and Mechanisms of Personalised Exercise and Education for chronic low back pain. </p>
3D data obtained with a MicroScribe digitising arm and photogrammetry to address bioarchaeological research questions
<p>Virtual methods for studying human remains are becoming increasingly popular in bioarchaeology, and the rate of technological innovation in the last few years has been such that we now have multiple options to choose from when collecting data. This raises the question of whether datasets generated with different methods are transposable. In the study reported here, we investigated whether it is valid to combine 3D data obtained with a MicroScribe digitising arm and 3D data collected via photogrammetry. We did so by simulating a population-based analysis similar to those commonly undertaken in bioarchaeology. Our sample comprised 19 crania from two ethnic groups, Ancient Egyptians and Guanches, and the landmarks we employed pertained to facial shape.</p> <p>The analyses yielded several findings. First, we found that photogrammetry was significantly more precise than the MicroScribe digitising arm. Second, the photogrammetry-based method revealed the existence of facial shape differences between the two ethnic groups that were not captured by the MicroScribe-based method. Third, we found that the two methods did not consistently capture the same facial shapes—they did for one of the ethnic groups but not for the other. Fourth, the analyses indicated that using the two methods can result in ethnic group-level differences in facial shape when they are applied to individuals from a single ethnic group. Lastly, the two methods of data collection yielded different patterns of variation in facial shape. Together, these findings suggest that combining 3D landmark coordinates collected with a MicroScribe and those obtained via photogrammetry may introduce considerable error into an analysis, and, consequently, bioarchaeologists should be cautious about doing so.</p>
Deliverable 5 - Research Questions Implementation
<p>This deliverable was intended to be the result of collaborative work to produce queries for the semantic census dataset, answering more complicated research questions. Built off of collaborative interaction, including online and in-person workshops, it provides a connection between the research layer of content specialists and the use of the new semantic data structure to take advantage of the semantic data’s expressivity.<br> At this stage of development, it entails a catalogue of a set of queries that allow researchers to engage with the RDF representation of the Census data in the context of a triple store. The catalogue of SparQL queries is intended to give researchers a first glimpse into an exploration of the Census data systematically in an RDF environment. <br> The queries may be reused and concatenated together in order to form more complex queries.</p>
Dataset for: Fifty years of research on questionable research practices in science: Quantitative analysis of co-citation patterns
<p>Questionable research practices (QRPs) have been the focus of the scientific community amid greater scrutiny and evidence highlighting issues with replicability across many fields of science. To capture the most impactful publications and the main thematic domains in the literature on QRPs, this study uses a document co-citation analysis. The analysis was conducted on a sample of 341 documents that covered the past 50 years of research in QRPs. Nine major thematic clusters emerged. Statistical reporting and statistical power emerged as key areas of research, where systemic-level factors in how research is conducted are consistently raised as the precipitating factors for QRPs. There is also an encouraging shift in the focus of research into open science practices designed to address engagement in QRPs. Such a shift is indicative of the growing momentum of the open science movement, and more research can be conducted on how these practices are employed on the ground and how their uptake by researchers can be further promoted. However, the results suggest that, while pre-registration and registered reports receive the most research interest, less attention has been paid to other open science practices (e.g., data and methods sharing).</p>
Dataset for: Fifty years of research on questionable research practices in science: Quantitative analysis of co-citation patterns
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
3D data obtained with a MicroScribe digitising arm and photogrammetry to address bioarchaeological research questions
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Evidence from the Literature to Answer Specific Research Questions
<p>All the relevant information that was extracted from the 21 selected articles to answer the four specific research questions (SRQ1, SRQ2, SRQ3, and SRQ4) are presented in a form of a complete table.</p>
Evidence from the Literature to Answer Specific Research Questions
<p>All the relevant information that was extracted from the 21 selected articles to answer the four specific research questions (SRQ1, SRQ2, SRQ3, and SRQ4) are presented in a form of a complete table.</p>
Evidence from the Literature to Answer Specific Research Questions
<p>All the relevant information that was extracted from the 21 selected articles to answer the four specific research questions (SRQ1, SRQ2, SRQ3, and SRQ4) are presented in a form of a complete table.</p>
Dataset and Research Questions for Open Science and Open Innovation
<p>Worksheet with a dataset of 55 articles and Research Questions in regard to bridging Open Science and Open Innovation.</p>
Codificación de los datos en base a las preguntas de investigación/ Coding of data based on the research questions
<p><br>Codificación de los datos en base a las preguntas de investigación/ Coding of data based on the research questions</p> <p>Una década de investigación sobre la eficacia de las prácticas de educación inclusiva y el DUA en la universidad. Revisión sistemática de la literatura.<br>A decade of research on the effectiveness of inclusive education practices and UDL in universities. Systematic literature review.</p> <p><br>María Pineda-Martínez<br>Agosto de 2024</p>
MonkeyPox2022Tweets: A Large-Scale Twitter Dataset on the 2022 Monkeypox Outbreak, Findings from Analysis of Tweets, and Open Research Questions
<p><strong>Please cite the following paper when using this dataset:</strong></p> <p>N. Thakur, “MonkeyPox2022Tweets: A large-scale Twitter dataset on the 2022 Monkeypox outbreak, findings from analysis of Tweets, and open research questions,” Infect. Dis. Rep., vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 855–883, 2022, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/idr14060087</p> <p><strong>Abstract</strong></p> <p>The mining of Tweets to develop datasets on recent issues, global challenges, pandemics, virus outbreaks, emerging technologies, and trending matters has been of significant interest to the scientific community in the recent past, as such datasets serve as a rich data resource for the investigation of different research questions. Furthermore, the virus outbreaks of the past, such as COVID-19, Ebola, Zika virus, and flu, just to name a few, were associated with various works related to the analysis of the multimodal components of Tweets to infer the different characteristics of conversations on Twitter related to these respective outbreaks. The ongoing outbreak of the monkeypox virus, declared a Global Public Health Emergency (GPHE) by the World Health Organization (WHO), has resulted in a surge of conversations about this outbreak on Twitter, which is resulting in the generation of tremendous amounts of Big Data. There has been no prior work in this field thus far that has focused on mining such conversations to develop a Twitter dataset. Therefore, this work presents an open-access dataset of <strong>571,831 Tweets</strong> about monkeypox that have been posted on Twitter since the first detected case of this outbreak on May 7, 2022. The dataset complies with the privacy policy, developer agreement, and guidelines for content redistribution of Twitter, as well as with the FAIR principles (Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reusability) principles for scientific data management.</p> <p> <strong>Data Description</strong></p> <p>The dataset consists of a total of <strong>571,831 Tweet IDs</strong> of the same number of tweets about monkeypox that were posted on Twitter from 7th May 2022 to 11th November (the most recent date at the time of uploading the most recent version of the dataset). The Tweet IDs are presented in 12 different .txt files based on the timelines of the associated tweets. The following represents the details of these dataset files.</p> <ul> <li>Filename: TweetIDs_Part1.txt (No. of Tweet IDs: 13926, Date Range of the associated Tweet IDs: May 7, 2022, to May 21, 2022)</li> <li>Filename: TweetIDs_Part2.txt (No. of Tweet IDs: 17705, Date Range of the associated Tweet IDs: May 21, 2022, to May 27, 2022)</li> <li>Filename: TweetIDs_Part3.txt (No. of Tweet IDs: 17585, Date Range of the associated Tweet IDs: May 27, 2022, to June 5, 2022)</li> <li>Filename: TweetIDs_Part4.txt (No. of Tweet IDs: 19718, Date Range of the associated Tweet IDs: June 5, 2022, to June 11, 2022)</li> <li>Filename: TweetIDs_Part5.txt (No. of Tweet IDs: 46718, Date Range of the associated Tweet IDs: June 12, 2022, to June 30, 2022)</li> <li>Filename: TweetIDs_Part6.txt (No. of Tweet IDs: 138711, Date Range of the associated Tweet IDs: July 1, 2022, to July 23, 2022)</li> <li>Filename: TweetIDs_Part7.txt (No. of Tweet IDs: 105890, Date Range of the associated Tweet IDs: July 24, 2022, to July 31, 2022)</li> <li>Filename: TweetIDs_Part8.txt (No. of Tweet IDs: 93959, Date Range of the associated Tweet IDs: August 1, 2022, to August 9, 2022)</li> <li>Filename: TweetIDs_Part9.txt (No. of Tweet IDs: 50832, Date Range of the associated Tweet IDs: August 10, 2022, to August 24, 2022)</li> <li>Filename: TweetIDs_Part10.txt (No. of Tweet IDs: 39042, Date Range of the associated Tweet IDs: August 25, 2022, to September 19, 2022)</li> <li>Filename: TweetIDs_Part11.txt (No. of Tweet IDs: 12341, Date Range of the associated Tweet IDs: September 20, 2022, to October 9, 2022)</li> <li>Filename: TweetIDs_Part12.txt (No. of Tweet IDs: 15404, Date Range of the associated Tweet IDs: October 10, 2022, to November 11, 2022) </li> </ul> <p>Please note: The dataset contains only Tweet IDs in compliance with the terms and conditions mentioned in the privacy policy, developer agreement, and guidelines for content redistribution of Twitter. The Tweet IDs need to be hydrated to be used. For hydrating this dataset, the <a href="https://github.com/DocNow/hydrator/releases">Hydrator application</a> may be used (a step-by-step process on how to use Hydrator to hydrate this dataset is explained in the above-mentioned paper). </p>
Figure 3 from: Murray M, O'Donnell M, Laufersweiler MJ, Novak J, Rozum B, Thompson S (2019) A survey of the state of research data services in 35 U.S. academic libraries, or "Wow, what a sweeping question". Research Ideas and Outcomes 5: e48809. https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.5.e48809
Figure 3 Types of campus groups that provide RDS (n=103). Type codes are defined as follows: Admin: a campus administrative unit that does not fall into any other category; Center: research centers or institutes excluding HPC groups; Dept = Departments or colleges; HPC: High Performance Computing and research computing units including HPC run by IT units; Individuals: Individual staff, faculty, students, etc.; IT: Information Technology associated with the entire campus, colleges, or departments excluding HPC groups; Lab: Various labs on campus that do not fall into any other category; Research Office: Groups that oversee university research; Other: Groups that cannot be categorized under any other code.
Figure 2 from: Murray M, O'Donnell M, Laufersweiler MJ, Novak J, Rozum B, Thompson S (2019) A survey of the state of research data services in 35 U.S. academic libraries, or "Wow, what a sweeping question". Research Ideas and Outcomes 5: e48809. https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.5.e48809
Figure 2 Breakdown of the workshops or topics with a tool or programming language code applied (n=47). Only tool codes that have a frequency >1 are shown. Tool code names are self-explanatory (i.e. the name of tool).
Figure 1 from: Murray M, O'Donnell M, Laufersweiler MJ, Novak J, Rozum B, Thompson S (2019) A survey of the state of research data services in 35 U.S. academic libraries, or "Wow, what a sweeping question". Research Ideas and Outcomes 5: e48809. https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.5.e48809
Figure 1 Workshop topic code frequencies. Up to two topic codes were applied to each workshop (n=160). Topic codes are defined as follows: Carpentry: a data or software Carpentry workshop; Cleaning: data cleaning and related techniques; Coding: how to work with data via command line or in a specific language; General: the basics of data management; GIS: geographic information system or spatial data/tools; Grants: the word "grants" or the name of a funding agency was explicitly mentioned in the workshop's title or description; HPC: high performance computing; Locate: focused on how to search and locate datasets; Metadata: metadata and data documentation; Mining: focused on text and data mining; Org: data organization; Other: misc. topics or unclassifiable; Plans: data management plans; Repository: addresses a specific repository, how to use a repository, or data repositories in general; Reproducibility: focused on research reproducibility; StorageSec: data storage and/or security tools and topics; Tool: focused on how to use tools related to data and data management (see Fig. 2); Visualization: data visualization.
Supplementary material 1 from: Murray M, O'Donnell M, Laufersweiler MJ, Novak J, Rozum B, Thompson S (2019) A survey of the state of research data services in 35 U.S. academic libraries, or "Wow, what a sweeping question". Research Ideas and Outcomes 5: e48809. https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.5.e48809
Links to library and university/college research data management policies.
Figure 4 from: Murray M, O'Donnell M, Laufersweiler MJ, Novak J, Rozum B, Thompson S (2019) A survey of the state of research data services in 35 U.S. academic libraries, or "Wow, what a sweeping question". Research Ideas and Outcomes 5: e48809. https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.5.e48809
Figure 4 Disciplinary categorization of campus groups that provide RDS (n=34). Discipline codes are defined as follows: Bio: Groups that specialize in biology, including health and medicine; Bio/Stats: Groups that specialize in biology and statistics; Data: no specific discipline but has the word 'data' in the name; GIS: Groups that specialize in spatial and GIS (Geographic Information Systems) data; Humanities: Groups specializing in humanities; Social/Stats: Groups that specialize in statistics and social science; SocialSci: Groups specializing in social science; Stats: Groups specializing in statistics.
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.