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.
37
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
37 results for “Science Funding”
Austrian Science Fund (FWF) Publication Cost Data 2014
<p>Following 2013 (http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.988754), the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) makes its publication costs spent in 2014 (esp. for Open Access) publically available.</p> <p>The dataset includes payments for publications of authors funded by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) via following programmes:</p> <p>"Peer-Reviewed Publications": https://www.fwf.ac.at/en/research-funding/fwf-programmes/peer-reviewed-publications/</p> <p>"Stand-Alone Publications": https://www.fwf.ac.at/en/research-funding/fwf-programmes/stand-alone-publications/</p> <p>In addition to 2013, this dataset includes also costs for Open Access books and other venues.</p>
Austrian Science Fund (FWF) Open Access Compliance Monitoring 2019
<p><strong>I. Executive summary</strong></p> <p>The Austrian Science Fund (FWF), which is Austria's main funding organisation for basic research, encourages and helps all project leaders and project staff members to make their peer-reviewed research results freely available on the Internet. Any exceptions must be clearly indicated and justified. For projects that started after 1 January 2015, open access has been compulsory for all peer-reviewed publications. All principal investigators in FWF-funded projects are obliged to submit a final report within three months of completing their projects.</p> <p>In 2019 all in all 565 final reports were submitted to the FWF, 44 out of them couldn't report publications by now. The publications and other data mentioned in those reports are archived and analysed by the FWF. This report examines the state of compliance with open access requirements on the basis of final project reports submitted in the year 2019.</p> <p>Main findings:</p> <p>-A total of 9.353 publications were listed in the final project reports submitted in 2019.</p> <p>-Of those publications, 7.326 were conclusively identified as peer-reviewed.</p> <p>-Regarding compliance with the FWF's Open Access Policy, the analysis shows that 89% of the peer-reviewed publications that are listed in the submitted final reports of FWF projects in 2019 are openly accessible (2015: 83%, 2016: 92%, 2017: 90%, 2018: 92%).</p> <p>-The most frequently chosen option is hybrid open access (40%). The share of old open access is 19%, the share of green open access 22% and other open access 8%.</p> <p>-The majority of peer-reviewed publications submitted are journal articles (91%), 91% of which are openly accessible.</p> <p>-The lowest rate of compliance with the FWF's Open Access Policy can be found in editions, contributions to edited volumes and monographs (42%).</p> <p>-Although open access is not compulsory for non peer-reviewed publications, 43% of those publications are freely available through the internet.</p> <p>-The absolute number of publications listed in final reports in 2019 includes 565 publications that are mentioned several times in different projects; however, those repetitions do not ultimately affect the relative share of open access publications (89%).</p> <p><strong>II. Bias</strong></p> <p>Half of the publications were entered in the FWF’s database manually and with utmost care when the final project reports were received. Nevertheless, it is not possible to rule out minor errors entirely. The other half has been submitted to the FWF via a research documentation system (provided by ©Researchfish) in which FWF-funded researchers are able to enter and update their research data on an ongoing basis. The last check of the open access status was performed in January 2020. In some cases, the embargo period may have already expired, and publications labelled other open access in the FWF’s database may now be accessible through green open access.</p> <p>Whenever the status "peer-reviewed" could not be clearly identified according to FWF guidelines, the publications were classified as non peer-reviewed.</p> <p>Openly available non peer-reviewed publications were entered as 'openly available'.</p> <p> </p>
Austrian Science Fund (FWF) Publication Cost Data 2015
<p>Following the approach for the datasets in 2013 (http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.988754) and 2014 (https://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1378610.v14), the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) is making the publication costs spent in 2015 (esp. for Open Access) publically available.</p> <p>The dataset includes payments for publications of authors funded by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) via following programmes:</p> <p>"Peer-Reviewed Publications": https://www.fwf.ac.at/en/research-funding/fwf-programmes/peer-reviewed-publications/</p> <p>"Stand-Alone Publications": https://www.fwf.ac.at/en/research-funding/fwf-programmes/stand-alone-publications/</p>
Austrian Science Fund (FWF) Publication Cost Data 2013
<p>Following the Wellcome Trust, the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) makes its publication costs spent in 2013 (esp. for Open Access) publically available.</p> <p>An aggregated version of this dataset is already published in FWF's annual report 2013 (p. 86), http://www.fwf.ac.at/de/public_relations/publikationen/jahresberichte/fwf-jahresbericht-2013.pdf</p> <p>The dataset includes payments for journal articles of authors funded by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) via the program ‘Peer Reviewed Publications’, http://www.fwf.ac.at/en/projects/peer-reviewed_publications.html</p> <p>The dataset distinguishes between three publication cost categories:</p> <p>(1) Gold Open Access and (2) Hybrid Open Access are defined by FWF's Open Access Policy, see: http://www.fwf.ac.at/en/public_relations/oai/index.html</p> <p>(3) ‘Other publication costs’ are defined as additional costs to subscription prices charged by subscription journals (i.e. submission fees, colour charges, page charges, figure charges, table charges, supplemental charges).</p> <p>Based on this data and the data of Web of Science (WoS), we roughly estimate for 2013 a share for Gold and Hybrid OA of around 33% of all articles (incl. reviews) that result from projects supported by the FWF and which are listed in Web of Science.</p> <p>The analysis of this dataset together with the report “Developing an Effective Market for Open Access Article Processing Charges” (http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/About-us/Policy/Spotlight-issues/Open-access/Guides/WTP054773.htm) will lead to an adaption of the FWF’s Open Access policy within the next months. One model, for example, for a cost-neutral Hybrid Open Access is already in place: http://ioppublishing.org/newsDetails/Austria-open-acces</p>
Linked collectors and determiners for: The Herbarium Fund of the Institute of Botany, Plant Physiology and Genetics at the Tajikistan National Academy of Sciences - BRAHMS records.
Natural history specimen data linked to collectors and determiners held within, "The Herbarium Fund of the Institute of Botany, Plant Physiology and Genetics at the Tajikistan National Academy of Sciences - BRAHMS records". Claims or attributions were made on Bionomia by volunteer Scribes, <a href="https://bionomia.net/dataset/d4b0f477-0ddf-4c47-a1fe-a7ffed28788e">https://bionomia.net/dataset/d4b0f477-0ddf-4c47-a1fe-a7ffed28788e</a> using specimen data from the dataset aggregated by the Global Biodiversity Information Facility, <a href="https://gbif.org/dataset/d4b0f477-0ddf-4c47-a1fe-a7ffed28788e">https://gbif.org/dataset/d4b0f477-0ddf-4c47-a1fe-a7ffed28788e</a>. Formatted as a Frictionless Data package.
COESO: funding entities of citizen science activities on social sciences and humanities topics
<p>This database has been compiled by the Ibercivis team working in COESO together with contributions from other members of the COESO Consortium and representatives of the COESO Advisory Board, in addition to those who contributed information through the surveys and interviews.</p>
Austrian Science Fund (FWF) Open Access Compliance Monitoring 2022
<p>I. Executive summary</p> <p>The Austrian Science Fund (FWF), which is Austria's main funding organisation for basic research, encourages and helps all project leaders and project staff members to make their peer-reviewed research results freely available on the Internet. Any exceptions must be clearly indicated and justified. For projects that started after 1 January 2015, open access has been compulsory for all peer-reviewed publications. All principal investigators in FWF-funded projects are obliged to submit a final report within four months of completing their projects.</p> <p>In 2022, a total of 575 final reports were submitted to the FWF, 38 of which could not report any publications so far. The publications and other data mentioned in those reports are archived and analysed by the FWF. This report examines the state of compliance with open access requirements for peer-reviewed publications on the basis of final project reports submitted in the year 2022.</p> <p>Main findings:</p> <p>-A total of 8,312 publications were listed in the final project reports submitted in 2022.</p> <p>-Of those publications, 6,631 were conclusively identified as peer-reviewed.</p> <p>-Regarding compliance with the FWF's Open Access Policy, the analysis shows that 85% of the peer-reviewed publications listed in the final project reports submitted in 2022 were openly accessible (2015: 83%, 2016: 92%, 2017: 90%, 2018: 92%, 2019: 89%, 2020: 84%, 2021 82%).</p> <p>-The most frequently chosen option was hybrid open access (36%). The share of gold open access was 29%, the share of green open access 20%, and no open access 15%.</p> <p>-The majority of peer-reviewed publications submitted were journal articles (85%), 86% of which were openly accessible.</p> <p>-The lowest rate of compliance with the FWF's Open Access Policy could be found in editions, contributions to edited volumes, and monographs 41%).</p> <p>-The absolute number of publications listed in final reports in 2022 included 354 publications that were mentioned several times in different projects; however, those repetitions did not affect the relative share of open access publications (85%).</p> <p>II. Bias</p> <p>All publications were submitted to the FWF via a research documentation system (provided by ©Researchfish), in which FWF-funded researchers are able to enter and update their research data on an ongoing basis. The last check of the open access status was performed in March 2023. In some cases, the embargo period may have already expired, and publications labelled ‘closed’ in the FWF’s database may now be accessible through green open access.</p> <p>Whenever the status ‘peer-reviewed’ could not be clearly identified according to the FWF’s guidelines, the publications were classified as non-peer reviewed.</p> <p>Openly available non-peer reviewed publications were entered as 'openly available’.</p>
Quantitative research - green organizations and green competencies - Miniatura 5 funded by the National Science Centre in Poland 2021/05/X/HS4/00974
<p>The questionnaire consisted of a general section meant to identify the type of the company, the region of its activity and the average number of employees together with with details of the respondent’s job position. The purpose of the second part of the questionnaire was to define the variables that make it possible to describe the company. These included the following ten: 1) sustainable<br> manufacturing; 2) green human resource management; 3) knowledge and awareness of ecology and sustainability; 4) environmental management; 5) green marketing; 6) environmentally friendly product design; 7) green supply chains; 8) closed-loop waste management; 9) zero waste buildings; 10) minimising the use of resources, including energy. Subsequently, based on the literature devoted to green competences, the questions were divided into four categories: knowledge, skills, attitudes and performance-related managerial skills. A total of 80 concepts were defined that were then assigned to separate categories and evaluated by respondents.<br> 100 manufacturing companies were surveyed (quantitative research). </p> <p>The research was funded by the National Science Centre in Poland 2021/05/X/HS4/00974</p>
Austrian Science Fund (FWF) funding statistics 2009-2019
<p>Compilation of funding statistics from FWF's annual reports as longitudinal data from 2009-2019</p>
Austrian Science Fund (FWF) funding statistics 2009-2014
<p>Compilation of funding statistics from FWF's annual reports as longitudinal data from 2009-2014.</p>
Austrian Science Fund (FWF) funding statistics 2009-2015
<p>Compilation of funding statistics from FWF's annual reports as longitudinal data from 2009-2015.</p>
OAPEN usage report for open access books funded by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) 2014 - 2016
<p>For several years now, the Stand-Alone Publications Programme by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) has been funding the production and simultaneous open-access publication of academic books, see: <a href="http://www.fwf.ac.at/en/research-funding/fwf-programmes/stand-alone-publications/">http://www.fwf.ac.at/en/research-funding/fwf-programmes/stand-alone-publications/</a></p> <p>All FWF-funded books are accessible free of charge in the FWF E-Book Library <a href="https://e-book.fwf.ac.at/">https://e-book.fwf.ac.at/</a> and in the OAPEN Library <a href="http://www.oapen.org/search">http://www.oapen.org/search</a>. </p> <p>The OAPEN Library’s annual data on book usage for 2014 to 2016 shows that the number of archived open-access books is rising steadily, as is the number of downloads per book.</p>
Austrian Science Fund (FWF) Open Access Compliance Monitoring 2016
<p><strong>I. Executive summary</strong></p> <p>The Austrian Science Fund (FWF), which is Austria's main funding organisation for basic research, encourages and helps all project leaders and project staff members to make their peer-reviewed research results freely available on the Internet. Since 1 January 2016, open access has been mandatory for all peer-reviewed publications listed in final reports on FWF-funded projects. Any exceptions must be clearly indicated and justified. For projects that started after 1 January 2015, open access has been compulsory for all peer-reviewed publications.</p> <p>All principal investigators in FWF-funded projects are obliged to submit a final report within three months of completing their projects.</p> <p>The publications and other data mentioned in those reports are archived and analysed by the FWF. This report examines the state of compliance with open access requirements on the basis of final project reports submitted in the year 2016.</p> <p>Main findings:</p> <ul> <li>A total of 6,994 publications were listed in the final project reports submitted in 2016.</li> <li>Of those publications, 5,146 were conclusively identified as peer-reviewed.</li> <li>Regarding compliance with the FWF's Open Access Policy, the report shows that 92% of the peer-reviewed publications that arose from FWF projects in 2016 are openly accessible (2015: 83%).</li> <li>The most frequently chosen option is hybrid open access (40%). Since last year's report, the use of green open access has increased by 3%, other open access by 5%, and gold open access by 2%.</li> <li>The majority of peer-reviewed publications submitted are journal articles, 93% of which are openly accessible.</li> <li>The lowest rate of compliance with the FWF's Open Access Policy can be found in editions, contributions to edited volumes and monographs (58%).</li> <li>Although open access is not compulsory, 48% of non peer-reviewed publications are freely available through the internet.</li> <li>The absolute number of publications listed in final reports in 2016 includes 321 publications that are mentioned several times in different projects; however, those repetitions do not ultimately affect the relative share of open access publications (92%).</li> </ul> <p><strong>II. Bias</strong></p> <p>All publications were entered in the FWF’s database manually and with the utmost care when the final project reports were received. Nevertheless, it is not possible to rule out minor errors entirely. Moreover, some systematic problems need to be solved in the future; the FWF is currently preparing to implement a research information system in which FWF-funded researchers will be able to enter and update their research data on an ongoing basis.</p> <ul> <li>Due to the amount of data involved, it was not possible to check the current open access status of all publications twice. The last check was performed in January 2017.</li> <li>In some cases, the embargo period may have expired after submission, and publications labelled "Other open access" in the FWF’s database may now be accessible through green open access.</li> <li>Whenever the status "peer-reviewed" could not be clearly identified according to FWF guidelines, the publications were classified as non peer-reviewed.</li> </ul>
Austrian Science Fund (FWF) Publication Cost Data 2016
<p>Following the approach for the datasets in 2013 (http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.988754), 2014 (https://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1378610.v14) and 2015 (https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.3180166), the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) is making the publication costs spent in 2016 (esp. for Open Access) publically available.</p> <p>The dataset includes payments for publications of authors funded by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) via following programmes:</p> <p>Peer-Reviewed Publications: https://www.fwf.ac.at/en/research-funding/fwf-programmes/peer-reviewed-publications/</p> <p>Stand-Alone Publications: https://www.fwf.ac.at/en/research-funding/fwf-programmes/stand-alone-publications/</p>
Prehistoric Mining sites in the Lower Inn Valley - Federal Monuments Office documentation of the project Austrian Science Fund project "Prehistoric copper production in the eastern and central Alps" (I 1670)
<p>The dataset contains all tables and RDF-triples created based on the following Federal Monuments Office Documentations</p> <ul> <li>87002.15.01_Verhuettungsplatz_suedlich_Ruine_Rottenburg: <a href="https://zenodo.org/record/5243460"> https://zenodo.org/record/5243460</a></li> <li>87002.16.01_Verhuettungsplatz_suedlich_Ruine_Rottenburg: <a href="https://zenodo.org/record/5244755"> https://zenodo.org/record/5244755</a></li> <li>87002.17.01_Verhuettungsplatz_suedlich_Ruine_Rottenburg: <a href="https://zenodo.org/record/5244794"> https://zenodo.org/record/5244794</a></li> <li>87007.15.01_Bergbaurevier_Schwaz_Brixlegg: <a href="https://zenodo.org/record/5236664"> https://zenodo.org/record/5236664</a></li> <li>87007.16.01_Bergbaurevier_Schwaz_Brixlegg: <a href="https://zenodo.org/record/5243123"> https://zenodo.org/record/5243123</a></li> <li>87009.16.01_Erzaufbereitungsplatz_Schrofen: <a href="https://zenodo.org/record/5243416"> https://zenodo.org/record/5243416</a></li> </ul>
Austrian Science Fund (FWF) Publication Cost Data 2021
<p>The following dataset provides information on the publication costs spent by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) via the programmes Peer-reviewed Publications (<a href="https://www.fwf.ac.at/en/research-funding/fwf-programmes/peer-reviewed-publications/">https://www.fwf.ac.at/en/research-funding/fwf-programmes/peer-reviewed-publications/</a>) and Stand-Alone Publications (<a href="https://www.fwf.ac.at/en/research-funding/fwf-programmes/stand-alone-publications/">https://www.fwf.ac.at/en/research-funding/fwf-programmes/stand-alone-publications/</a>) in 2021.</p>
Austrian Science Fund (FWF) Open Access Compliance Monitoring 2021
<p><strong>I. Executive summary</strong></p> <p>The Austrian Science Fund (FWF), which is Austria's main funding organisation for basic research, encourages and helps all project leaders and project staff members to make their peer-reviewed research results freely available on the Internet. Any exceptions must be clearly indicated and justified. For projects that started after 1 January 2015, open access has been compulsory for all peer-reviewed publications. All principal investigators in FWF-funded projects are obliged to submit a final report within four months of completing their projects.</p> <p>In 2021, a total of 584 final reports were submitted to the FWF, 48 of which could not report any publications so far. The publications and other data mentioned in those reports are archived and analysed by the FWF. This report examines the state of compliance with open access requirements for peer-reviewed publications on the basis of final project reports submitted in the year 2021.</p> <p>Main findings:</p> <p>-A total of 7,025 publications were listed in the final project reports submitted in 2021.</p> <p>-Of those publications, 5,735 were conclusively identified as peer-reviewed.</p> <p>-Regarding compliance with the FWF's Open Access Policy, the analysis shows that 82% of the peer-reviewed publications listed in the final project reports submitted in 2021 were openly accessible (2015: 83%, 2016: 92%, 2017: 90%, 2018: 92%, 2019: 89%, 2020: 84%).</p> <p>-The most frequently chosen option was hybrid open access (39%). The share of gold open access was 23%, the share of green open access 20%, and no open access 18%.</p> <p>-The majority of peer-reviewed publications submitted were journal articles (85%), 86% of which were openly accessible.</p> <p>-The lowest rate of compliance with the FWF's Open Access Policy could be found in editions, contributions to edited volumes, and monographs (50%).</p> <p>-The absolute number of publications listed in final reports in 2021 included 403 publications that were mentioned several times in different projects; however, those repetitions did not ultimately affect the relative share of open access publications (81%).</p> <p>II. Bias</p> <p>Most of the publications were submitted to the FWF via a research documentation system (provided by ©Researchfish), in which FWF-funded researchers are able to enter and update their research data on an ongoing basis. The last check of the open access status was performed in March 2022. In some cases, the embargo period may have already expired, and publications labelled ‘closed’ in the FWF’s database may now be accessible through green open access.</p> <p>Whenever the status ‘peer-reviewed’ could not be clearly identified according to the FWF’s guidelines, the publications were classified as non-peer reviewed.</p> <p>Openly available non-peer reviewed publications were entered as 'openly available’.</p>
International research collaboration - New funding opportunities for universities of applied sciences
<p><b>Abstract</b></p><p class="dhik-abstract-content">A coordinated measure within DFG's portfolio is explained, meant to support Universities of Applied Sciences UAS to find international cooperation partners for potential DFG research projects. In case of interest on all DFG's UAS-measures, please supply your contact data to Jennifer.Gronau@dfg.de</p><p></p><p><b>Weitere Beiträge aus dem DHIK-Forum 2022 auf Zenodo:</b></p><p class="dhik-session-list"></p><ul><li>Session #1: Viktor Sigrist: Internationalisierung - Partnerschaften für den Ausbau von Forschung und Entwicklung (DOI:<a href="https://zenodo.org/record/7123701">10.5281/zenodo.7123701</a>)</li><li>Session #2: Dieter Leonhard: DHIK- Strategien der internationalen Zusammenarbeit in Forschung und Lehre (DOI:<a href="https://zenodo.org/record/7123456">10.5281/zenodo.7123456</a>)</li><li>Session #3: Stephen Wittkopf: Wissens- und Innovationstransfer - Interdisziplinäre Zusammenarbeit mit Unternehmen und Institutionen (DOI:<a href="https://zenodo.org/record/7025707">10.5281/zenodo.7025707</a>)</li><li>Session #4: Xiao Feng: CDHAW - Chinesisch-Deutsche Hochschule für Angewandte Wissenschaften (DOI:<a href="https://zenodo.org/record/7123458">10.5281/zenodo.7123458</a>)</li><li>Session #5: Antonio Pita und Isabel Kreiner: Academy-Industry-Collaboration - Outreach Strategy (DOI:<a href="https://zenodo.org/record/7123460">10.5281/zenodo.7123460</a>)</li><li>Session #6: Martin Sternberg: Promotionsrecht – aktueller Stand an deutschen Hochschulen für angewandte Wissenschaften (DOI:<a href="https://zenodo.org/record/7123757">10.5281/zenodo.7123757</a>)</li><li>Session #7: Adrian Derungs: Duo mit Innovationskraft - Zusammenspiel von Forschung und Wirtschaft in der Zentralschweiz (DOI:<a href="https://zenodo.org/record/7123767">10.5281/zenodo.7123767</a>)</li><li>Session #8: Theres Paulsen: Transdisziplinäre Forschung - komplexe gesellschaftliche Herausforderungen erfordern diverse Ansätze (DOI:<a href="https://zenodo.org/record/7123769">10.5281/zenodo.7123769</a>)</li><li><b>Session #9: Jörg Schneider: International research collaboration - New funding opportunities for universities of applied sciences (<a href="#collapseTwo">Video</a>)</b></li><li>Session #10: Cornelia Spycher und Matthew Whellens: Horizon Europe - overview of funding opportunities for your research and innovation (DOI:<a href="https://zenodo.org/record/7123773">10.5281/zenodo.7123773</a>)</li><li>Session #11: Janique Siffert: Eureka Eurostars - erfolgreiche Förderung für internationale Innovationsprojekte (DOI:<a href="https://zenodo.org/record/7123777">10.5281/zenodo.7123777</a>)</li><li>Session #12: Ludger Fischer: Energy Lab - ein Netzwerk für innovative Lösungen im Energiebereich (DOI:<a href="https://zenodo.org/record/7123779">10.5281/zenodo.7123779</a>)</li><li>Session #13: Jörg Worlitschek: Thermal energy storage - heating the north, cooling the south (DOI:<a href="https://zenodo.org/record/7123781">10.5281/zenodo.7123781</a>)</li><li>Session #14: Jonas Mühlethaler: Neues DC Microgrid-Konzept – netzunabhängige Elektrifizierung in Entwicklungsländern (DOI:<a href="https://zenodo.org/record/7123783">10.5281/zenodo.7123783</a>)</li><li>Session #15: Tommy Claussen: Dekarbonisierung des Gebäudesektors - digitale Transformation in der Gebäudetechnik und im Gebäudemanagement (DOI:<a href="https://zenodo.org/record/7123785">10.5281/zenodo.7123785</a>)</li><li>Session #16: Christoph Imboden: Flexibility solutions - making the power grid fit for the future (DOI:<a href="https://zenodo.org/record/7123787">10.5281/zenodo.7123787</a>)</li><li>Session #17: Uwe Schulz: Spielerisches Sarnetz - Simulationen für die fossile Unabhängigkeit einer Ortschaft (DOI:<a href="https://zenodo.org/record/7123790">10.5281/zenodo.7123790</a>)</li><li>Session #18: Jana Koehler: Künstliche Intelligenz – Erfolg durch Erwünschtheit, Machbarkeit und Wirtschaftlichkeit (DOI:<a href="https://zenodo.org/record/7123792">10.5281/zenodo.7123792</a>)</li><li>Session #19: Rolf Kamps: KI in der Prävention - Befragungsmethoden und Schulungen trainieren, Krankheitserreger erkennen (DOI:<a href="https://zenodo.org/record/7123794">10.5281/zenodo.7123794</a>)</li><li>Session #20: Gwendolyne Pascua: Artificial Intelligence in Space - CIMON assisting astronauts on the International Space Station (DOI:<a href="https://zenodo.org/record/7123796">10.5281/zenodo.7123796</a>)</li><li>Session #21: Tobias Matter et.al.: Augmented Reality Soundscapes - mit maschinellem Lernen Klangkulissen von zukünftigen Bauvorhaben generieren (DOI:<a href="https://zenodo.org/record/7123798">10.5281/zenodo.7123798</a>)</li><li>Session #22: Angela Nicoara: Internet of Things - transforming businesses, people's lives and driving growth in the coming years (DOI:<a href="https://zenodo.org/record/7123800">10.5281/zenodo.7123800</a>)</li><li>Session #23: Adrian Koller: Feldrobotik - unermüdliche und zunehmend intelligentere Hilfe in der Landwirtschaft (DOI:<a href="https://zenodo.org/record/7123802">10.5281/zenodo.7123802</a>)</li><li>Session #24: Widar von Arx et.al.: Realisierung der Verkehrswende - Einfluss der Preispolitik in der Mobilität (DOI:<a href="https://zenodo.org/record/7124000">10.5281/zenodo.7124000</a>)</li><li>Session #25: Andreas Liebrich: Tourismusdateninfrastruktur - Was die Schweiz von Europa lernen kann (DOI:<a href="https://zenodo.org/record/7123806">10.5281/zenodo.7123806</a>)</li><li>Session #26: Frank Pöhlau und Stefan May: Find life on Mars - Schülerprojekte zur mobilien Robotik (DOI:<a href="https://zenodo.org/record/7123808">10.5281/zenodo.7123808</a>)</li><li>Session #27: Jiayun Shen: Open Innovation - Innovationsmanagement bei der Schweizerischen Post (DOI:<a href="https://zenodo.org/record/7123810">10.5281/zenodo.7123810</a>)</li><li>Session #28: Tobias Specker: Interkulturelles Management – innovative Konzepte zum Ausbau der China-Kompetenzen an Hochschulen (DOI:<a href="https://zenodo.org/record/7123812">10.5281/zenodo.7123812</a>)</li><li>Session #29: Elena Algorri: Swimming robots - exploring the unterwater from the surface (DOI:<a href="https://zenodo.org/record/7123814">10.5281/zenodo.7123814</a>)</li><li>Session #30: Sergio Camacho: Robotics and Digital Systems Engineering at the Tec de Monterrey (DOI:<a href="https://zenodo.org/record/7123816">10.5281/zenodo.7123816</a>)</li><li>Session #31: Thomas Dorn: Industrie 4.0 - Forschungskooperationen mit der CDHAW und der Tongji Universität Shanghai (DOI:<a href="https://zenodo.org/record/7123818">10.5281/zenodo.7123818</a>)</li><li>Session #32: Walter Reichert et.al.: Kollaboration und Unterstützung - Mobile Robotik und Exoskelette in der flexiblen Produktion (DOI:<a href="https://zenodo.org/record/7123820">10.5281/zenodo.7123820</a>)</li><li>Session #33: Louis Palmer: Solar Butterfly - climate pioneer world tour supported by HSLU (DOI:<a href="https://zenodo.org/record/7123822">10.5281/zenodo.7123822</a>)</li></ul><p></p>
Austrian Science Fund (FWF) Publication Cost Data 2017
<p><br> Following the approach for the datasets in 2013 (<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.988754">http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.988754</a>), 2014 (<a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1378610.v14">https://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1378610.v14</a>), 2015 (<a href="https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.3180166">https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.3180166</a>) and 2016 (<a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.810596">https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.810596</a>), the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) is making the publication costs spent in 2017 (esp. for Open Access) publically available.</p> <p>The dataset includes payments for publications of authors funded by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) via following programmes:</p> <p>Peer-Reviewed Publications: <a href="https://www.fwf.ac.at/en/research-funding/fwf-programmes/peer-reviewed-publications/">https://www.fwf.ac.at/en/research-funding/fwf-programmes/peer-reviewed-publications/</a></p> <p>Stand-Alone Publications: <a href="https://www.fwf.ac.at/en/research-funding/fwf-programmes/stand-alone-publications/">https://www.fwf.ac.at/en/research-funding/fwf-programmes/stand-alone-publications/</a></p>
Austrian Science Fund (FWF) Open Access Compliance Monitoring 2017
<p><strong>I. Executive summary</strong></p> <p>The Austrian Science Fund (FWF), which is Austria's main funding organisation for basic research, encourages and helps all project leaders and project staff members to make their peer-reviewed research results freely available on the Internet. Since 1 January 2016, open access has been mandatory for all peer-reviewed publications listed in final reports on FWF-funded projects. Any exceptions must be clearly indicated and justified. For projects that started after 1 January 2015, open access has been compulsory for all peer-reviewed publications.</p> <p>All principal investigators in FWF-funded projects are obliged to submit a final report within three months of completing their projects. In 2017 all in all 608 final reports were submitted to the FWF, 42 out of them couldn't report publications by now.</p> <p>The publications and other data mentioned in those reports are archived and analysed by the FWF. This report examines the state of compliance with open access requirements on the basis of final project reports submitted in the year 2017.</p> <p>Main findings:</p> <ul> <li>A total of 8.398 publications were listed in the final project reports submitted in 2017.</li> <li>Of those publications, 6.439 were conclusively identified as peer-reviewed.</li> <li>Regarding compliance with the FWF's Open Access Policy, the report shows that 90% of the peer-reviewed publications that arose from submitted final reports of FWF projects in 2017 are openly accessible (2015: 83%, 2016: 92%).</li> <li>The most frequently chosen option is hybrid open access (41%). Since last year's report, the use of green open access has declined by 5% green open access and by 2 % gold open access. Other open access has increased by 4%, and hybrid open access by 1%.</li> <li>The majority of peer-reviewed publications submitted are journal articles, 91% of which are openly accessible.</li> <li>The lowest rate of compliance with the FWF's Open Access Policy can be found in editions, contributions to edited volumes and monographs (66%) an increase by 8% since last year's report.</li> <li>Although open access is not compulsory, 51% of non peer-reviewed publications are freely available through the internet.</li> <li>The absolute number of publications listed in final reports in 2017 includes 715 publications that are mentioned several times in different projects; however, those repetitions do not ultimately affect the relative share of open access publications (90%).</li> <li>56% of all peer-reviewed publications without open access originate from the "Special Research Programmes" (SFB). Since these reserach networks have a long duration, the open access policy of the FWF often does not yet apply to them.</li> </ul> <p><strong>II. Bias</strong></p> <p>All publications were entered in the FWF’s database manually and with the utmost care when the final project reports were received. Nevertheless, it is not possible to rule out minor errors entirely. Moreover, some systematic problems need to be solved in the future; the FWF is currently preparing to implement a research information system in which FWF-funded researchers will be able to enter and update their research data on an ongoing basis.</p> <ul> <li>Due to the amount of data involved, it was not possible to check the current open access status of all publications twice. The last check was performed in January 2018.</li> <li>In some cases, the embargo period may have expired after submission, and publications labelled "Other open access" in the FWF’s database may now be accessible through green open access.</li> </ul> <p>Whenever the status "peer-reviewed" could not be clearly identified according to FWF guidelines, the publications were classified as non peer-reviewed.</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.