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.
22
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
22 results for “compliance monitoring”
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>
Open Data in German Forest Information Systems: Towards an EU Forest Resilience Monitor (Original dataset on Forest Resilience Indicators and their compliance with Open data criteria)
<p>This dataset represents the original analysis on which my Master's Thesis in the pioneer master programme at the Universities of Münster, Tallinn (Taltech) and Leuven (KUL), titled "Open Data in German Forest Governance: Towards an EU Forest Resilience Monitor". </p> <ul> <li>The first sheet contains the coding on information systems on <strong>bird species occurrence</strong> and their compliance with Open data criteria, with justifications, links or further information speciefied in comments, where necessary. </li> <li>The second sheet contains the coding on information systems on <strong>tree species distribution</strong> and their compliance with Open data criteria, with justifications, links or further information speciefied in comments, where necessary. </li> <li>The third sheet contains the coding on information systems on <strong>soil water conditions</strong> and their compliance with Open data criteria, with justifications, links or further information speciefied in comments, where necessary. </li> <li>The fourth sheet contains the coding on information systems on <strong>canopy cover</strong> and their compliance with Open data criteria, with justifications, links or further information speciefied in comments, where necessary. </li> <li>The fifth sheet contains the coding on information systems on <strong>carbon sequestration</strong> and their compliance with Open data criteria, with justifications, links or further information speciefied in comments, where necessary. </li> <li>The sixth sheet contains the data on the <strong>individual scores per policy level/state per indicator group and the respective averages</strong>. More information on the operationaliation can be found in the methodology section of the thesis. </li> <li>The seventh sheet contains the data on the <strong>individual scores per policy level/state per indicator group and the respective averages, ranked from highest to lowest compliance</strong>. More information on the operationaliation can be found in the methodology section of the thesis. </li> <li>The last sheet gives <strong>information on the coding</strong>. </li> </ul>
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>
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) 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>
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>
Austrian Science Fund (FWF) Open Access Compliance Monitoring 2020
<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 2020, a total of 483 final reports were submitted to the FWF, 32 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 2020.</p> <p>2020 shows a significant decline in the number of publications compared to 2019. This decline can be explained by the fact that 15% fewer final project reports were received as a result of weaker funding years in the mid-2010s as well as an increased shift of final report submissions from 2020 to later points in time (‘corona effect’). Especially in the programmes with the highest number of publications (Doctoral Programmes, Special Research Programmes) as well as in programmes with many projects (Stand-Alone Projects, International Projects), there were fewer final project reports submitted, which has a massive impact on the total number of publications. It must be taken into account that the method (recording the number of publications via final project reports) is a look into the past, as the final project reports show publications that were produced in previous years during the project term. The publication activity in relation to the year of publication itself is relatively constant according to databases such as Dimensions. Due to the automation of the monitoring processes and the introduction of Plan S of cOAlition S, the category of ‘Other open access’ (self-archiving in a non-maintained repository, homepage, or archiving of preprints), which was previously determined manually, is no longer taken into account, and thus the open access share of peer-reviewed publications has decreased compared to previous years.</p> <p>Main findings:</p> <p>-A total of 6,196 publications were listed in the final project reports submitted in 2020.</p> <p>-Of those publications, 4,809 were conclusively identified as peer-reviewed.</p> <p>-Regarding compliance with the FWF's Open Access Policy, the analysis shows that 84% of the peer-reviewed publications listed in the final project reports submitted in 2020 were openly accessible (2015: 83%, 2016: 92%, 2017: 90%, 2018: 92%, 2019: 89%).</p> <p>-The most frequently chosen option was hybrid open access (40%). The share of old open access was 21%, the share of green open access 23%, and no open access 16%.</p> <p>-The majority of peer-reviewed publications submitted were journal articles (89%), 88% 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 (38%).</p> <p>-The absolute number of publications listed in final reports in 2020 included 362 publications that were mentioned several times in different projects; however, those repetitions did not ultimately affect the relative share of open access publications (83%).</p> <p><strong>II. Bias</strong></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 2020. In some cases, the embargo period may have already expired, and publications labelled ‘no 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 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> <p> </p>
Austrian Science Fund (FWF) Open Access Compliance Monitoring 2023
<p>I. Executive summary</p> <p> </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 2023, a total of 560 final reports were submitted to the FWF, 36 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 2023.</p> <p> </p> <p>Main findings:</p> <p> </p> <p>-A total of 6.389 publications were listed in the final project reports submitted in 2023.</p> <p>-Of those publications, 5.296 were conclusively identified as peer-reviewed.</p> <p>-Regarding compliance with the FWF's Open Access Policy, the analysis shows that 84% of the peer-reviewed publications listed in the final project reports submitted in 2023 were openly accessible (2017: 90%, 2018: 92%, 2019: 89%, 2020: 84%, 2021: 82%, 2022: 85%).</p> <p>-The most frequently chosen option was hybrid open access (37%). The share of gold open access was 31%, the share of green open access 17%, and no open access 16%.</p> <p>-The majority of peer-reviewed publications submitted were journal articles (85%), 91% 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 (34%).</p> <p>-The absolute number of publications listed in final reports in 2023 included 265 publications that were mentioned several times in different projects; however, those repetitions did not affect the relative share of open access publications (84%).</p> <p> </p> <p>II. Bias</p> <p> </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 2024. 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> </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>
Assessment of Compliance With Monitoring Conducted by a Physician in Person or by a Nurse in Remote Monitoring
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT05500391. IPD Sharing: Not stated. Countries: 1. Publications: 5.
Telehealth Monitoring in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Effects on Medication Compliance, Self-Efficacy, and Quality of Life
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT06971627. IPD Sharing: NO. Countries: 1. Publications: 2.
Comparative Study of a Smartphone-Linked Self-Monitoring System Versus a Traditional One for Improving Metabolic Control and Compliance to Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT02073188. IPD Sharing: Not stated. Countries: 1. Publications: 1.
Can Objective Compliance Monitoring Increase Mandibular Advancement Device Usage in Obstructive Sleep Apnea Patients
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT02885571. IPD Sharing: NO. Countries: 1. Publications: 3.
Austrian Science Fund (FWF) Open Access Compliance Monitoring 2018
<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 2018 all in all 549 final reports were submitted to the FWF, 37 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 2018.</p> <p>Main findings:</p> <ul> <li>A total of 10.354 publications were listed in the final project reports submitted in 2018.</li> <li>Of those publications, 7.702 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 submitted final reports of FWF projects in 2018 are openly accessible (2015: 83%, 2016: 92%, 2017: 90%).</li> <li>The most frequently chosen option is <em>hybrid open access </em>(39%)<em>. </em>Since last year's report, the use of<em> </em><em>hybrid open access </em>has declined by 2% and <em>g</em><em>old open access </em>has increased by 4%. The share of <em>green open access </em>and <em>other open access </em>remained contant (20% and 16%).</li> <li>The majority of peer-reviewed publications submitted are journal articles (90%), 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 (65%).</li> <li>Although open access is not compulsory, 41% of non peer-reviewed publications are freely available through the internet.</li> <li>The absolute number of publications listed in final reports in 2018 includes 886 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 2019.</li> <li>In some cases, the embargo period may have expired after submission, and publications labelled o<em>ther open access</em> in the FWF’s database may now be accessible through <em>green open access.</em></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> <li>Openly available non peer-reviewed publications were entered as <em>other open access</em>.</li> </ul>
Electronic Compliance Monitoring in Parkinson's Disease
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT00361205. IPD Sharing: Not stated. Countries: 0. Publications: 1.
Clozapine Hematological Monitoring Regulatory Compliance Assessment in Psychiatry
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT06610500. IPD Sharing: NO. Countries: 1. Publications: 0.
The Impact of Mobile Application-Supported Monitoring on Treatment Compliance and Success in Lifestyle Changes in Hypertensive Patients
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT07299266. IPD Sharing: NO. Countries: 0. Publications: 0.
Effect of Video Camera Monitoring Feedback on Hand Hygiene Compliance and Infections in NICU
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT04053257. IPD Sharing: Not stated. Countries: 1. Publications: 0.
Electronic Compliance Monitoring in Opioid Substitution Treatment
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT01182402. IPD Sharing: Not stated. Countries: 1. Publications: 0.
Arimidex Therapy Compliance Electronic Monitoring System
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT00936442. IPD Sharing: Not stated. Countries: 1. Publications: 0.
Retrospective Study of Prescribed Physical Activity in Patients With Overactive Bladder Syndrome Monitored Within the Pelvi-perineology Network in Dijon: Evaluation of Prescription Compliance and Impa
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT03552172. IPD Sharing: Not stated. Countries: 1. Publications: 0.
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.