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.
43
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
43 results for “publishing practices”
Quality evaluation criteria, best practices, and assessment systems for Institutional Publishing Service Providers (IPSPs): dataset
<p>The dataset contains tabular information on the elements of best practice in scholarly publishing found in a set of documents (high-level recommendations and principles, indexation criteria and specific assessment guidelines used on the national and institutional levels). The set of documents subject to analysis (58 items) were identified by the DIAMAS project team members (bibliographic metadata are provided in IPSP-best-practice-documents.xml and IPSP-best-practice-documents.ris).</p> <p>The dataset was compiled by the DIAMAS project team using an analysis matrix that included the general information about the documents (title, issuing entity, scope and purpose, etc.) and the the seven core components of scholarly publishing identified in the Diamond Open Access Action Plan (2022) and revised by the DIAMAS project team.</p> <p>More information about the data collection methodology can be found in the report D3.1 IPSP Best Practices Quality evaluation criteria, best practices, and assessment systems for Institutional Publishing Service Providers (IPSPs) (<a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7859172">https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7859172</a>), which is based on this dataset.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>****Dataset contents****</strong></p> <p>IPSPs_best-practices-overview.csv</p> <p>IPSPs_best-practices-overview.ods</p> <p>IPSP-best-practice-documents.xml</p> <p>IPSP-best-practice-documents.ris</p> <p>README.txt</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>****Column headers and field types***</strong></p> <p>Title (original) (text)</p> <p>Title (English) (text)</p> <p>Publication date (date, DD/MM/YY)</p> <p>Last accessed (date, DD/MM/YY)</p> <p>URL (text-web address)</p> <p>Scope (text, controlled)</p> <p>Type of document (text, controlled)</p> <p>Original language (text)</p> <p>Other languages (text)</p> <p>Entity issuing the document (text)</p> <p>Entity responsible for the assessment (text)</p> <p>Scope of the assessment (text, controlled)</p> <p>Scope of assessment: region or country (text)</p> <p>Disciplines’ coverage (text)</p> <p>Periodicity of the assessment (text)</p> <p>Reassessment frequency? If yes: periodicity (text)</p> <p>Benefits linked to the assessment (text)</p> <p>(1) Funding (text)</p> <p>(2) Ownership and governance (text)</p> <p>(3) Open science practices (text)</p> <p>(4) Editorial quality, editorial management and research integrity (text)</p> <p>(5) Technical service efficiency (text)</p> <p>(6) Visibility (including indexation), communication, marketing and impact (text)</p> <p>(7) Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (text)</p>
Fig. 17 in Consortium of European TaXonomic Facilities (CETAF) best practices in electronic publishing in taXonomy
Fig. 17. Open Access benefits, from Aston University Library Services (available from https://www.yearofopen.org/march-open-perspective-open-access/).
Fig. 15 in Consortium of European TaXonomic Facilities (CETAF) best practices in electronic publishing in taXonomy
Fig. 15. Different routes for disseminating scientific publications (Cabut & Larousserie 2013, redrawn by Laurence Bénichou from Infographie du Monde).
Fig. 14 in Consortium of European TaXonomic Facilities (CETAF) best practices in electronic publishing in taXonomy
Fig. 14. Scholar production costs. Four steps are needed to produce scholar papers, of which three are publicly-funded. In the first scenario, the library pays back the final product by subscription to the publisher while in the second, the publishing costs are supported by the publisher (commercial or institutional) and then the access is free for the reader.
Fig. 13 in Consortium of European TaXonomic Facilities (CETAF) best practices in electronic publishing in taXonomy
Fig. 13. The authorships highlighted in yellow are cited nowhere else in the article and yet they are listed in the references section (Schott & Evans 2016).
Fig. 12 in Consortium of European TaXonomic Facilities (CETAF) best practices in electronic publishing in taXonomy
Fig. 12. Here "Bleeker, 1857" is considered by the authors as a bibliographical reference and listed as such under the references section although it has not been cited elsewhere in the text (Tucker et al. 2016).
Fig. 6 in Consortium of European TaXonomic Facilities (CETAF) best practices in electronic publishing in taXonomy
Fig. 6. Authorships formally presented as references, those in yellow are listed in the references section whereas those in orange are not considered as bibliographic references. A. Musavu Moussavou (2017). B. Mendoza-Garfias et al. (2017).
Fig. 2 in Consortium of European TaXonomic Facilities (CETAF) best practices in electronic publishing in taXonomy
Fig. 2. Here, "Whalen (1989)" is cited in the taxonomic treatment but not listed in the references section (Knapp et al. 2017).
Fig. 11 in Consortium of European TaXonomic Facilities (CETAF) best practices in electronic publishing in taXonomy
Fig. 11. Underlined in blue are the references linked to the bibliography (considered as such because they are cited in an unambiguous way elsewhere in the text) whereas those in black are not linked because they are not listed in the bibliography (Foley et al. 2017).
Fig. 1 in Consortium of European TaXonomic Facilities (CETAF) best practices in electronic publishing in taXonomy
Fig. 1. The reference highlighted in yellow is listed under the references section, even though it has not been cited anywhere else in the article (Coritico et al. 2017).
Fig. 4 in Consortium of European TaXonomic Facilities (CETAF) best practices in electronic publishing in taXonomy
Fig. 4. The references highlighted in orange are not listed in the References section whereas the reference in yellow, because it is recent, is listed (Ardenghi et al. 2016).
Fig. 3 in Consortium of European TaXonomic Facilities (CETAF) best practices in electronic publishing in taXonomy
Fig. 3. Contrary to the example in Fig. 2, and despite it being published in the same journal, here "Cholnoky 1957" is cited only in the taxonomic treatment (and nowhere else in the text) and referenced under the bibliographic section (Jahn et al. 2017).
Fig. 7 in Consortium of European TaXonomic Facilities (CETAF) best practices in electronic publishing in taXonomy
Fig. 7. In this article the reference highlighted in orange indicates a reference that is only cited under taxonomic treatment and listed under the references section; in yellow a reference that is cited elsewhere thus listed under the references section; in blue are the references that should have been listed but are not in the references section (Waite R. & Allmon W.D. 2016).
Fig. 9 in Consortium of European TaXonomic Facilities (CETAF) best practices in electronic publishing in taXonomy
Fig. 9. In this example the references in yellow are not provided in the bibliographic section, but the the one in green is, because it has been formally mentioned elsewhere in the article as a reference (Rakotondrainibe & Jouy 2016).
Fig. 10 in Consortium of European TaXonomic Facilities (CETAF) best practices in electronic publishing in taXonomy
Fig. 10. In this article "Utinomi 1958" is cited only in the taxonomic treatment (but nowhere else in the text) and referenced in the bibliographic section (Yu et al. 2017).
Fig. 5 in Consortium of European TaXonomic Facilities (CETAF) best practices in electronic publishing in taXonomy
Fig. 5. Authorship formally presented as a reference. A. Kim et al. (2017). B. Lanteri & del Rio (2017).
Fig. 8 in Consortium of European TaXonomic Facilities (CETAF) best practices in electronic publishing in taXonomy
Fig. 8. All authorships cited highlighted in yellow are listed in the references section even though they are not cited as a bibliographic reference anywhere else in the text (Pole & McLoughlin 2017).
Practical Books published in England, 1476–1600
<p>These two .csv files are companion data for the book <em><a href="https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/R/bo222256991.html">Reading Practice: The Pursuit of Natural Knowledge from Manuscript to Print</a> </em>(University of Chicago Press, 2024). They contain publication information for all "practical books" printed in England between 1476 and 1600. Practical books are defined as books published in English in any of the following genres:</p> <ul> <li>medical recipe collections</li> <li>herbals</li> <li>astrological manuals</li> <li>agricultural treatises</li> <li>anatomies</li> <li>surgeries</li> <li>dietaries or health regimens</li> <li>urinaries</li> <li>books on distillation</li> <li>gardening manuals</li> <li>books on hawking and hunting</li> <li>husbandry manuals</li> <li>veterinary medicine </li> </ul> <p>The publication information for the 479 books reflected in these spreadsheets were collected from the British Library's digital database, <a href="https://estc.bl.uk" target="_blank" rel="noopener">estc.bl.uk</a>, which contains information bibliographical data drawn from Katherine Pantzer, et al, eds., <em>A Short-Title Catalogue of Books Printed in England, Scotland, and Ireland, </em><em>and of English Books Printed Abroad, 1475–1640, </em>3 vols., revised and enlarged second edition (London: Bibliographical Society, 1976–1993). Note that as of summer 2024, the digital <em>ESTC</em> remains inaccessible following a cyber attack on the British Library. </p> <p>Both spreadsheets contain information on the same 479 titles, but the data in the second "standardized titles" spreadsheet has been cleaned in order to create standard titles for reeditions of the same texts. In other words, in the "standardized titles" spreadsheet, all editions of the same text are registered under the same title.</p>
Fig. 16 in Consortium of European TaXonomic Facilities (CETAF) best practices in electronic publishing in taXonomy
Fig. 16. Scheme extracted from Roarmap showing the different policies regarding Open Access.
Quality of advertisements for prescription drugs in family practice medical journals published in Australia, Canada, and the United States with different regulatory controls: a cross-sectional study
<p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><b>OBJECTIVE: </b>To assess if different forms of regulation lead to differences in the quality of journal advertisements.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><b>DESIGN: </b>Cross-sectional study.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><b>PARTICIPANTS: </b>Thirty advertisements from family practice journals published from 2013-2015 were extracted for three countries with distinct regulatory pharmaceutical promotion systems: Australia, Canada, and the United States (US). </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><b>PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: </b>Advertisements under each regulatory system were compared concerning three domains: information included in the advertisement, references to scientific evidence, and pictorial appeals and portrayals. An overall ranking for advertisement quality among countries was determined using the first two domains as the information assessed has been associated with more appropriate prescribing. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><b>RESULTS: </b>Advertisements varied significantly for number of claims with quantitative benefit (Australia: 0.0 (0.0-3.0); Canada: 0.0 (0.0-5.0); US: 1.0 (0.0-6.0); p=0.01); statistical method used in reporting benefit (RRR, ARR, and NNT) (Australia: 6.7%, n=2; Canada: 10.0%, n=3; US: 36.6%, n=11; p=0.02); mention of adverse effects, warnings, or contraindications (Australia: 13.3%, n=4; Canada: 23.3%, n=7; US: 53.3%, n=16; p=0.002); equal prominence between safety and benefit information (Australia: 25.0%, n=1; Canada: 28.6%, n=2; US: 75.0%, n=12; p=0.04); and methodologic quality of references score (Australia: 0.4150 (0.25-0.70); Canada: 0.25 (0.00-0.63); US: 0.25 (0.00-0.75); p<0.001). The US ranked first, Canada second, and Australia third for overall quality of journal advertisements. Significant differences for humor appeals (Australia: 3.3%, n=1; Canada: 13.3%, n=4; US: 26.7%, n=8; p=0.04), positive emotional appeals (Australia: 26.7%, n=8; Canada: 60.0%, n=18; US: 50.0%, n=15; p=0.03), social approval portrayals (Australia: 0.0%, n=0; Canada: 0.0%, n=0; US: 10.0%, n=3; p=0.04), and lifestyle or work portrayals (Australia: 43.3%, n=13; Canada: 50.0%, n=15; US: 76.7%, n=23; p=0.02) were found among countries.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><b>CONCLUSIONS:</b> <a name="_Hlk34742358">Different regulatory systems influence journal advertisement quality concerning all measured domains. </a>However, differences may also be attributed to other regulatory, legal, cultural, or health system factors unique to each country.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></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.