Find research datasets worth reusing

opencc-by-4.0May 2020View details →

Factors affecting altmetrics attention to scholarly publication in peer-reviewed journals published in Iran and Turkey

The goal of this study was to trace the altmetric measures of peer-reviewed journals in two non-English speaking countries na,ely Iran and Turkey, in order to understand their correlation with some website structure and design determinants, as well as the subject and the full-text language of the journals.

opencc-by-4.0Jan 2021View details →

Codes and Datasets for: 'The Largest Academic Publishers of Scholarly Journals: A Webscraping Approach'

This set comprises: <ul> <li>"count_publishers*": four R codes ("count_publishers*") that draw from DOAJ, Publons, Scopus and SherpaRomeo to extract scholarly publishers and the journal counts assigned to each publisher;</li> <li>"data*": two underlying data samples (from DOAJ and Scopus) - the two other samples are accessed via webscraping;</li> <li>"harmonize*": one text-file and one R-code for harmonizing publisher names;</li> <li>"alljournals.xlsx": the resulting list of scholarly publishers ordered by the highest number of journal counts assigned to them.</li> </ul>

opencc-by-4.0May 2024View details →

Research Scholars Workshop: Publishing in Beyond

Not sure where to submit your research to? Consider publishing your research through Beyond: Undergraduate Research Journal (<a href="https://commons.erau.edu/beyond/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">https://commons.erau.edu/beyond/</a>). This is a peer-reviewed publication of the Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University Office of Undergraduate Research. The journal publishes the following scholarly works by ERAU students from the Worldside, Daytona, and Prescott campuses:

openother-pdJan 2023View details →

Mapping the Swiss Landscape of Diamond Open Access Journals. The PLATO Study on Scholar-Led Publishing. Dataset

Context From March to September 2022, the <a href="https://www.openscience.uzh.ch/en/openaccess/plato.html">«Platinum Open Access Funding» Project (PLATO)</a>, in collaboration with the Institute for Applied Data Science & Finance at the Bern University of Applied Sciences, undertook a bibliometric and empirical study of the Platinum/Diamond open access journal landscape in Switzerland. The PLATO project is an initiative of six Swiss universities – the University of Zurich, the University of Bern, the University of Geneva, the University of Neuchâtel, the Zurich University of the Arts and ETH Zurich –, dedicated to furthering community-led scholarly publishing in Switzerland. Diamond open access stands for a concept of equitable open access to and participation in scholarly publishing that is free for both authors and readers. Presentation The main objective of the PLATO Study was to gain insight into the Platinum/Diamond open access publishing ecosystem in Switzerland through a mixed-method approach. The study consisted of three parts: First, bibliometric data were combined with inputs from Swiss open access publishers, institutional open access experts as well as information on journal websites to identify Swiss Diamond OA journals and their main characteristics. Second, seven semi-structured interviews with editors of select Diamond OA journals were conducted to generate a thorough understanding of their workflows, infrastructures, business models, challenges and opportunities. Third, based on the inputs from the interviews, three surveys were designed and sent to authors/reviewers, editors, and representatives of hosting and funding institutions of Swiss Diamond OA journals. The results of the study are published in the form of the following outputs: <ul> <li>DOI Report: 10.5281/zenodo.7461728</li> <li>DOI Bibliometric List: <a href="https://zenodo.org/record/6992615#.YzK3ElJBw-Q">10.34914/olos:l2tys6tie5f63h35lqpqzzlx24</a></li> <li>DOI Data Set: 10.5281/zenodo.7461754</li> </ul> The Data Set comprises the following files: <ul> <li>Survey questionnaires</li> </ul>                    SurveyQuestionnaire_Author.pdf                    SurveyQuestionnaire_Editor.pdf                    SurveyQuestionnaire_Publisher.pdf <ul> <li>Data collected in three survey studies addressing journal editors, authors/reviewers as well as representatives of hosting and funding institutions:</li> </ul>                    StudyData_Author.csv                    StudyData_Editor.csv                    StudyData_Publisher.csv <ul> <li>Codebooks explaining the coding of the survey data files:</li> </ul>                    StudyCodebook_Author.pdf                    StudyCodebook_Editor.pdf                    StudyCodebook_Publisher.pdf

opencc-by-4.0Apr 2023View details →

Governing Scholar-Led OA Book Publishers: Interviews with Presses

This is a set of interviews conducted by Dr. Judith Fathallah in the context of the 2023 research report "Governing Scholar-Led OA Book Publishers: Values, Practices, Barriers", with the kind assistance of the following interviewees: <ul> <li> François van Schalkwyk, Director of African Minds </li> <li> Joe Deville, Co-Founder of Mattering Press </li> <li> Jeff Pooley, Director of mediastudies.press </li> <li> Mercedes Bunz, Co-Founder of meson press </li> <li> Alessandra Tosi, Co-Director of Open Book Publishers </li> <li> Eileen Joy, Co-Director of punctum books. </li> </ul>

dryad36/100

Scholarly publishing in a developing nation

The scholarly literature from the developing world is low, and the scientific impact in some countries, including Libya, is much lower compared with their peers. This study explores the editorial practices and editors' perspectives to gain insight into the standard of scholarly publishing in Libya.

opencc-zeroJun 2023View details →

dryad36/100

Scholarly publishing in a developing nation

Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.

publicJun 2023View details →

zenodo32/100

Supplementary material 1 from: Penev L (2017) From Open Access to Open Science from the viewpoint of a scholarly publisher. Research Ideas and Outcomes 3: e12265. https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.3.e12265

A presentation held by Lyubomir Penev in the iDiv Seminar Seies at the Biodiversity Informatics Unit of the German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Leipzig, 15 February 2017.

opencc-zeroFeb 2017View details →

opencc-by-4.0Dec 2019View details →

Data for article: Normative drift and self-correction and self-regulation in scholarly publishing: The case of scholarly books published by academics at Makerere University

University academics face multiple pressures to publish. These pressures emanate from contexts with different, often competing, social norms which result in academics publishing for reasons that may run counter to accepted scientific practice. This paper asks what decisions are being taken by academics when it comes to their choice of scholarly book publisher. An analysis of books selected from more than 2,500 self-reported scholarly publications produced by academics at Makerere University in Uganda from 2011 to 2017, reveals that 31 scholarly books were published. Of these books, more than half (54%) were published by publishers that do not follow accepted scholarly publishing practice. Findings also show that there was a sharp decline in books published with suspect publishers in the second half of the seven-year period. The article discusses possible reasons for the selection of suspect publishers and considers four factors that may account for the observable decline: (1) a cyclical downturn; (2) improved research management and reporting; (3) explication of the norms of science; and (4) self-correction. METHODS The specific interest of this study is the publication of scholarly books by academics at Makerere University.  The sources of the publications data were the lists of research outputs published in Makerere University’s annual reports from 2011 to 2017. Digital copies of the annual reports in PDF format were downloaded from the university’s website. Data were scraped from the annual report PDFs by exporting the publication lists from the PDFs to MSWord, removing unnecessary line breaks and spacing to create a single publication per line, and copying the publication lists into MSExcel for cleaning and analysis. Data were cleaned to remove (1) duplicate entries (e.g. identical publications in the same annual report or a publication listed as ‘under review’ or ‘in press’ in one year and listed again as a publication in a following year); (2) publications listed as ‘submitted’, unpublished masters and PhD theses, speeches, lectures, responses or retractions; (3) incomplete entries (e.g. no article, book  or journal title); and (4) publications prior to 2011 (e.g. a 2008 publication listed in the 2011 annual report). The cleaned data were then coded for ‘year of publication’ (2011 to 2017 inclusive), ‘college’ (any of the colleges at Makerere University to which the authors were affiliated),  and ‘publication type’ (book chapter, journal article, edited volume, working paper, policy brief, monograph, conference paper, textbook, report, popular article, poster presentation, newsletter, essay, catalogue, poetry, handbook). Books or parts of books (i.e. ‘book chapter’, ‘edited volume’, ‘monograph’, ‘textbook’, ‘catalogue’, ‘poetry’ and ‘handbook’) were further coded for ‘publisher’ (name); ‘publisher location’ (city, country as indicated on the imprint page of the publication); and ‘URL’ (online reference to publisher or publication). In some cases, publications were listed by type in the annual reports. Where publication lists were not presented in this way, indicators such as ‘journal of’, ‘volume’, ‘issue’ and ISSNs were used to identify journals; conference names, ‘proceedings of’, dates and cities were used to identify conference papers and presentations; ‘news’, ‘magazine’, ISSNs and the absence of ‘journal of’ were used to identify periodicals; and place of publication, publisher and ISBNs were used to identify books. Where these indicators were insufficient to determine a publication type, an online search was done to find the missing data.   A limitation of the adopted method is that it relies on self-reporting by the university colleges and the list can therefore not be assumed to be comprehensive. Without knowledge of the reporting guidelines, it is also not possible to know whether all colleges and schools used the same criteria when selecting what to submit for reporting purposes. For example, some colleges may have decided to include working papers, policy briefs or papers presented at conferences, while others may have decided not to do so.

opencc-by-4.0Sep 2020View details →

Base de datos de impacto científico y académico de la bioacústica en Costa Rica utilizando el software Publish or Perish y la plataforma de Google Scholar

La bioacústica ha permitido ampliar las formas de comprender la dinámica de los ecosistemas y las especies mediante el uso de archivos de sonido los cuales son considerados un espécimen acústico. En Costa Rica dada su alta biodiversidad, los sonidos forman parte importante de la comunicación en muchas especies silvestres y la producción científica referente al tema de bioacústica se encuentra en aumento. El objetivo de la investigación fue analizar el impacto de la bioacústica desde la perspectiva de la producción científica y académica durante los últimos 50 años y destacar la importancia de los sonidos en la conservación de especies y sus hábitats en Costa Rica. Se registraron un total de 1849 documentos representados por artículos científicos y libros publicados en revistas indexadas y editoriales en el campo de biología, ecología, conservación, cambio climático, entre otras. A pesar del aumento en las investigaciones biológicas en Costa Rica, los vacíos de información en ecosistemas naturales y alterados siguen siendo importantes y en este contexto, la bioacústica podría tomar un papel preponderante en la investigación en el país ya que combinada con otras disciplinas puede dar respuesta a interrogantes previas o nuevas preguntas de investigación en diversos campos.

Figure 6 from: Penev L, Mietchen D, Chavan V, Hagedorn G, Smith V, Shotton D, Ó Tuama É, Senderov V, Georgiev T, Stoev P, Groom Q, Remsen D, Edmunds S (2017) Strategies and guidelines for scholarly publishing of biodiversity data. Research Ideas and Outcomes 3: e12431. https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.3.e12431

Figure 6 - Automated creation of data paper manuscripts from Ecological Metadata Language (EML) metadata in the ARPHA Writing Tool.

Figure 5 from: Penev L, Mietchen D, Chavan V, Hagedorn G, Smith V, Shotton D, Ó Tuama É, Senderov V, Georgiev T, Stoev P, Groom Q, Remsen D, Edmunds S (2017) Strategies and guidelines for scholarly publishing of biodiversity data. Research Ideas and Outcomes 3: e12431. https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.3.e12431

Figure 5 - The metadata from the GBIF Integrated Publishing Toolkit (IPT) can be downloaded as RTF or EML files and submitted to Pensoft's journals as data paper manuscripts.

Figure 3 from: Penev L, Mietchen D, Chavan V, Hagedorn G, Smith V, Shotton D, Ó Tuama É, Senderov V, Georgiev T, Stoev P, Groom Q, Remsen D, Edmunds S (2017) Strategies and guidelines for scholarly publishing of biodiversity data. Research Ideas and Outcomes 3: e12431. https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.3.e12431

Figure 3 - The user interface of the ARPHA Writing Tool through which single or multiple specimen records from GBIF, BOLD, iDigBio and PlutoF are imported through records identifiers.

Figure 1 from: Penev L, Mietchen D, Chavan V, Hagedorn G, Smith V, Shotton D, Ó Tuama É, Senderov V, Georgiev T, Stoev P, Groom Q, Remsen D, Edmunds S (2017) Strategies and guidelines for scholarly publishing of biodiversity data. Research Ideas and Outcomes 3: e12431. https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.3.e12431

Figure 1 - Recommendation of Dryad to cite both the original article in association with which the data were published and the data themselves.

Figure 7 from: Penev L, Mietchen D, Chavan V, Hagedorn G, Smith V, Shotton D, Ó Tuama É, Senderov V, Georgiev T, Stoev P, Groom Q, Remsen D, Edmunds S (2017) Strategies and guidelines for scholarly publishing of biodiversity data. Research Ideas and Outcomes 3: e12431. https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.3.e12431

Figure 7 - Selection of the journal and "Data Paper (Biosciences)" template in the ARPHA Writing Tool.

Figure 4 from: Penev L, Mietchen D, Chavan V, Hagedorn G, Smith V, Shotton D, Ó Tuama É, Senderov V, Georgiev T, Stoev P, Groom Q, Remsen D, Edmunds S (2017) Strategies and guidelines for scholarly publishing of biodiversity data. Research Ideas and Outcomes 3: e12431. https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.3.e12431

Figure 4 - Occurrence records and taxonomic treatments (if present in the article), published in the Biodiversity Data Journal, are exported in two separate Darwin Core Archives (DwC-A) and are available for direct download or harvesting via web services.