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.
14
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
14 results for “open peer review”
Review of definitions of Open Peer Review in the scholarly literature 2016
<p>This data set contains:</p> <ul> <li>Full data files of a 2016 review of definitions of Open Peer Review in the scholarly literature in xls and csv formats</li> <li>Description of data collection methodology (txt)</li> <li>Readme file (txt)</li> </ul> <p>The term “open peer review” has neither a standardized definition nor an agreed schema of its features and implementations. Recognising the absence of a consensus view on what OPR is, OpenAIRE has undertaken a systematic review of definitions of “open peer review” or “open review”, to create a corpus of 122 definitions. These definitions have been systematically analysed to build a coherent typology of the many different innovations in peer review signified by the term and hence provide the precise technical definition currently lacking. This quantifiable data offers rich information on the range and extent of differing definitions over time and by broad subject area.</p> <p>Contact:</p> <p>Tony Ross-Hellauer: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4470-7027 / ross-hellauer@sub.uni-goettingen.de</p>
OpenAIRE Open Peer Review Survey 2016
<p>This data set contains:</p> <p>- Full data files of a 2016 survey of attitudes to Open Peer Review in xls and csv formats<br> - Survey questions (pdf)<br> - Readme file (txt)</p> <p>Between 8 September and 7 October 2016, OpenAIRE held a survey designed to aid the development of appropriate OPR approaches by providing evidence about the attitudes of authors, editors and reviewers towards OPR, their reservations and needs, as well as to gauging current levels of experience and reservation with different types of OPR. A supplementary aim was to collect feedback on a provisional definition of OPR as created during another strand of work. The survey aimed to aid the development of appropriate OPR approaches by providing evidence about the attitudes of authors, editors and reviewers towards OPR, their reservations and needs, as well as to gauge current levels of experience and reservations with different types of OPR. The survey was conducted via an openly accessible online questionnaire (using the scientific survey platform SoSci, www.soscisurvey.de). It received a total of 3062 complete responses (a further 635 responses were discarded as incomplete). The survey was open to all wishing to take part and distributed via social media, scholarly communications mailing lists, publisher newsletters and, in one case, a publisher internal mailing list (Copernicus Publications). </p> <p>Acknowledgement: This work is funded by the European Commission H2020 project OpenAIRE2020 (Grant agreement: 643410, Call: H2020-EINFRA-2014-1)</p> <p>Contact: Dr Tony Ross-Hellauer, University of Göttingen, State and University Library, ross-hellauer@sub.uni-goettingen.de<br> </p>
2023 Utrecht University Open Access Monitor (peer reviewed journal articles)
<p>Results of the OA monitor of Utrecht University (UU) and University Medical Center Utrecht(UMCU) for the year 2023. It lists the open access availability of all peer reviewed journal articles registered in the CRIS (Pure) of Utrecht University and/or University Medical Center Utrecht. </p>
Proportion of Open Access Papers Published in Peer-Reviewed Journals in Austria 2008-2013
<p>In 2014, Archambault et al. published a report which provided data about Open Access publishing for the years 2008-2013 for all countries of the European Research Area (ERA) as well as for Brazil, Canada, Japan and the USA. They differentiated not only by disciplines but also by three OA categories: Golden, Green and a residual category. For the dataset, the data for Austria and the whole area examined has been extracted and modified. The results show above-average rates for Austria in almost all disciplines.</p>
Guidelines for Open Peer Review Implementation
<p>Background data and documents for submitted article "<strong>Guidelines for open peer review implementation</strong>", created as a result of a workshop organised by the OpenUP project 27th March 2018 in London, UK.</p> <p>Article abstract: Open peer review (OPR) is moving into the mainstream, but it is often poorly understood and surveys of researcher attitudes show important barriers to implementation. As more journals move to implement and experiment with the myriad of innovations covered by this term, there is a clear need for best practice guidelines to guide implementation. This brief article aims to address this knowledge gap, reporting work based on an interactive stakeholder workshop to create best-practice guidelines for editors and journals who wish to transition to OPR. Although the advice is aimed mainly at editors and publishers of scientific journals, since this is the area in which OPR is at its most mature, many of the principles may also be applicable for the implementation of OPR in other areas (e.g., books, conference submissions).</p> <p>Documents contained here:</p> <p>- Pre-workshop informal data-gathering</p> <p>- Workshop agenda and attendee list</p> <p>- Minutes from the Workshop session on implementation guidelines</p> <p>- Slides used to introduce the theme and begin discussion</p> <p> </p>
Data for study "'Conditional Acceptance' (additional experiments required): A scoping review of recent evidence on key aspects of Open Peer Review"
<p>Dataset for study "‘Conditional Acceptance’ (additional experiments required): A scoping review of recent evidence on key aspects of Open Peer Review", 2022 preprint by Tony Ross-Hellauer and Serge Horbach.</p> <p>Dataset includes excel file with 10 sheets showing systematic literature search (per PRISMA-SCR protocol) of academic databases (Web of Science, Scopus), snowballing and web-search to identify 52 studies on key aspects of Open Peer Review published from Jan 2017 until May 2022.</p> <p><strong>Study Abstract: </strong>Diverse efforts are underway to reform the journal peer review system. Combined with growing interest in Open Science practices, Open Peer Review (OPR) has become of central concern to the scholarly community. However, what Open Peer Review is understood to encompass and how effective some of its elements are in meeting the expectations of the peer review system, are uncertain. This scoping review updates previous efforts to summarise research on OPR to date. Following the PRISMA methodological framework, it addresses the question: “What evidence has been reported in the scientific literature from 2017 to date regarding uptake, attitudes, and efficacy of two key aspects of Open Peer Review (Open Identities and Open Reports)?” The review identifies, analyses and synthesises 52 studies matching inclusion criteria, finding that OPR is growing, but still far from common practice. Our findings indicate positive attitudes towards Open Reports and more sceptical approaches to Open Identities. Changes in reviewer behaviour seem limited. and no evidence for lower acceptance rates of review invitations or slower turnaround times is reported. Concerns about power dynamics and potential backfiring on critical reviews are in need of further experimentation. We conclude that elements of OPR seem to be gaining acceptance, but more experimentation is needed. Evidence still mainly consists of either survey data or case studies of individual or few journals, not allowing for generalisability across fields and journals, and revealing no studies which compare the quality of review under Open Identities or Open Reports versus other modes of peer review.</p>
Signing up to Open Science: Open Peer Review and Aligning Core Values
<p><strong>Episode Summary:</strong></p> <p>In this episode we are talking to Dr Guillaume Filion from the Center for Genomic Regulation (CRG), Barcelona about his decision to put his name on all his peer reviews, why he feels this makes him more accountable, and what choices researchers need to make about whether their values align with those who they will work with. </p> <p><strong>Resources and Links:</strong></p> <ul> <li><a href="https://www.orion-openscience.eu/node/201">Factsheets</a></li> <li><a href="https://www.crg.eu/en/programmes-groups/filion-lab">Dr Guillaume Filion</a> <ul> <li><a href="https://twitter.com/thegrandlocus">Twitter Page</a></li> </ul> </li> <li><a href="http://blog.thegrandlocus.com/2018/09/on-open-peer-review">Original Blog Post by Dr Guillaume Filion</a></li> <li><a href="https://www.fosteropenscience.eu/learning/open-peer-review/#/id/5a17e150c2af651d1e3b1bce">FOSTER+ Information on Open Peer Review </a></li> </ul> <p><strong>Episode Quotes:</strong></p> <p>“I had the feeling I would do a better job as a reviewer, if I put my name on it, if I put my name on the line then it would force me not to do a bad job”</p>
Open Peer Review Journal Data
<p>This csv file contains a descriptive dataset of <strong>617</strong> scholarly journals that make use of a form of Open Peer Review (OPR) based on Open Reports and/or Open Reviewer Identities. The data file contains the following fields:</p> <p>Journal Title</p> <p>Year of First Identified OPR Occurrence (2001-2019)</p> <p>High Level Discipline of the Journal (Humanities, Medical and Health Sciences, Multidisciplinary, Natural Sciences, Social Sciences, Technology)</p> <p>Journal URL</p> <p>Journal Publisher</p> <p>Publisher Country</p> <p>Use of Open Reports (Decided by Author, Decided by Editor, Mandated by Journal, None)</p> <p>Use of Open Reviewer Identities (Decided by Reviewer, Mandated, None)</p> <p>Notes that provide additional information about the journal</p>
Which peer reviewers voluntarily reveal their identity to authors? Insights into the consequences of open-identities peer review
<p>Identifying reviewers is argued to improve quality and fairness of peer review, but is generally disfavored by reviewers. To gain some insight into the factors that influence when reviewers are willing to have their identity revealed, I examine which reviewers voluntarily reveal their identities to authors at the journal <i>Functional Ecology</i>, at which reviewer identities are confidential unless reviewers sign their comments to authors. 5.6% of reviewers signed their comments to authors. This proportion increased slightly over time, from 4.4% in 2003-2005 to 6.7% in 2013-2015. Male reviewers were 1.8 times more likely to sign their comments to authors than were female reviewers, and this difference persisted over time. Few reviewers signed all of their reviews; reviewers were more likely to sign their reviews when their rating of the manuscript was more positive, and papers that had at least one signed review were more likely to be invited for revision. Signed reviews were, on average, longer and recommended more references to authors. My analyses cannot distinguish cause-and-effect for the patterns observed, but my results suggest that "open identities" review, in which reviewers are not permitted to be anonymous, will likely reduce the degree to which reviewers are critical in their assessment of manuscripts and will differentially affect recruitment of male and female reviewers, negatively affecting the diversity of reviewers recruited by journals.</p>
Which peer reviewers voluntarily reveal their identity to authors? Insights into the consequences of open-identities peer review
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Authorship information of open educational resources derived from peer-reviewed scientific literature
<p>This dataset evaluates the authorship of open educational resources available at 5 STEM resource web sites (EcoEd Digital Library, CourseSource, Teaching Issues and Experiments in Ecology, Teach the Earth, and the National Center for Case Study Teaching in Science). Using 20 exercises from each site, it evaluates the proportion of exercises that draw on peer-reviewed scientific studies; of those, it also evaluates the proportion in which any author of the teaching exercise overlaps with any author of a scientific article from which the open educational resource is derived. The overall goal is to evaluate overlap in authorship between scientific publications and associated open educational resources. The first tab shows how the studies were selected and the second tab presents authorship data for each study.</p>
Open peer review in scientific journals indexed in DOAJ (respostas)
<p><span><span>Dados coletados para o desenvolvimento da dissertação, e demais publicações dela provenientes, intitulada "REVISÃO POR PARES ABERTA: PERCEPÇÃO DOS EDITORES DE PERIÓDICOS CIENTÍFICOS INDEXADOS NO DIRECTORY OF OPEN ACCESS JOURNALS" de autoria de Francisca Clotilde de Andrade Maia, sob orientação da Dra. Maria Giovanna Guedes Farias. </span></span></p>
Authorship information of open educational resources derived from peer-reviewed scientific literature
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Distribution of peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed journals by their status as Open Access / Closed Access Journals and Discipline
<p>1) Shares of peer reviewed and non peer reviewed open access journals and closed access journals by discipline (using ulrichs periodicals subject categories)<br> 2) Shares of journals (social sciences, medicine) in german language that are peer reviewed/ non peer reviewed and that are available open access/ closed access (using ulrichs periodicals subject categories)</p> <p> </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.