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.
235
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
235 results for “survey research”
Harvard Forest Summer Research Program in Ecology URSSA Survey since 2006
Program Context Since its inception in 1985, when a single undergraduate worked on a study of old-growth forests, the Harvard Forest Summer Research Program in Ecology (HF-SRPE) has developed into a thriving and well-coordinated program that is central to the educational and research mission of the biological field station. With core support since 1993 from a succession of NSF REU Site awards and NSF REU supplements, and with additional funding from Harvard University, HF-SRPE has grown to support 20-30 undergraduate students annually. Students are mentored by principle investigators and senior scientists in conducting research in ecology, soil science, paleoecology, wildlife biology, conservation biology, and atmospheric sciences. The research conducted by our HF-SRPE students contributes substantially to long-term scientific investigations supported by NSF’s Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) and National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON), NASA Earth System Science Pathfinder (ESSP) – Earth Ventures (EV) programs, The Smithsonian Institution’s ForestGEO network of plots, and Department of Energy’s (DOE) National Institute for Global Environmental Change (NIGEC). The overarching objectives of the program are to: enhance the ability of students to undertake high-quality interdisciplinary research; build teams of researchers in which students bring different strengths to the table, collaborate on cutting-edge projects, and find their own intellectual “voice”; encourage students to link fundamental and applied issues in their research; and cultivate the next generation of ecological scientists and educators that reflects the diversity of backgrounds and experiences of students in the United States. Problem Statement Starting in 2005 the National Science Foundation (NSF), as one of the largest funders of undergraduate research programs, began emphasizing the use of project evaluations to both qualitatively and quantitatively measure the success of REU programs (R
Harvard Forest Summer Research Program in Ecology Student Surveys 2016-2021
Program Context Since its inception in 1985, when a single undergraduate worked on a study of old-growth forests, the Harvard Forest Summer Research Program in Ecology (HF-SRPE) has developed into a thriving and well-coordinated program that is central to the educational and research mission of the biological field station. With core support since 1993 from a succession of NSF REU Site awards and NSF REU supplements, and with additional funding from Harvard University, HF-SRPE has grown to support 20-30 undergraduate students annually. Students are mentored by principle investigators and senior scientists in conducting research in ecology, soil science, paleoecology, wildlife biology, conservation biology, and atmospheric sciences. The research conducted by our HF-SRPE students contributes substantially to long-term scientific investigations supported by NSF’s Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) and National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON), NASA Earth System Science Pathfinder (ESSP) – Earth Ventures (EV) programs, The Smithsonian Institution’s ForestGEO network of plots, and Department of Energy’s (DOE) National Institute for Global Environmental Change (NIGEC). The overarching objectives of the program are to: enhance the ability of students to undertake high-quality interdisciplinary research; build teams of researchers in which students bring different strengths to the table, collaborate on cutting-edge projects, and find their own intellectual “voice”; encourage students to link fundamental and applied issues in their research; and cultivate the next generation of ecological scientists and educators that reflects the diversity of backgrounds and experiences of students in the United States. Problem Statement Starting in 2005 the National Science Foundation (NSF), as one of the largest funders of undergraduate research programs, began emphasizing the use of project evaluations to both qualitatively and quantitatively measure the success of REU programs (R
Harvard Forest Summer Research Program in Ecology Pre/Post Survey 2006-2015
Program Context Since its inception in 1985, when a single undergraduate worked on a study of old-growth forests, the Harvard Forest Summer Research Program in Ecology (HF-SRPE) has developed into a thriving and well-coordinated program that is central to the educational and research mission of the biological field station. With core support since 1993 from a succession of NSF REU Site awards and NSF REU supplements, and with additional funding from Harvard University, HF-SRPE has grown to support 20-30 undergraduate students annually. Students are mentored by principle investigators and senior scientists in conducting research in ecology, soil science, paleoecology, wildlife biology, conservation biology, and atmospheric sciences. The research conducted by our HF-SRPE students contributes substantially to long-term scientific investigations supported by NSF’s Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) and National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON), NASA Earth System Science Pathfinder (ESSP) – Earth Ventures (EV) programs, The Smithsonian Institution’s ForestGEO network of plots, and Department of Energy’s (DOE) National Institute for Global Environmental Change (NIGEC). The overarching objectives of the program are to: enhance the ability of students to undertake high-quality interdisciplinary research; build teams of researchers in which students bring different strengths to the table, collaborate on cutting-edge projects, and find their own intellectual “voice”; encourage students to link fundamental and applied issues in their research; and cultivate the next generation of ecological scientists and educators that reflects the diversity of backgrounds and experiences of students in the United States. Problem Statement Starting in 2005 the National Science Foundation (NSF), as one of the largest funders of undergraduate research programs, began emphasizing the use of project evaluations to both qualitatively and quantitatively measure the success of REU programs (R
Harvard Forest Summer Research Program in Ecology Alumni Survey 2013-2015
Program Context Since its inception in 1985, when a single undergraduate worked on a study of old-growth forests, the Harvard Forest Summer Research Program in Ecology (HF-SRPE) has developed into a thriving and well-coordinated program that is central to the educational and research mission of the biological field station. With core support since 1993 from a succession of NSF REU Site awards and NSF REU supplements, and with additional funding from Harvard University, HF-SRPE has grown to support 20-30 undergraduate students annually. Students are mentored by principle investigators and senior scientists in conducting research in ecology, soil science, paleoecology, wildlife biology, conservation biology, and atmospheric sciences. The research conducted by our HF-SRPE students contributes substantially to long-term scientific investigations supported by NSF’s Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) and National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON), NASA Earth System Science Pathfinder (ESSP) – Earth Ventures (EV) programs, The Smithsonian Institution’s ForestGEO network of plots, and Department of Energy’s (DOE) National Institute for Global Environmental Change (NIGEC). The overarching objectives of the program are to: enhance the ability of students to undertake high-quality interdisciplinary research; build teams of researchers in which students bring different strengths to the table, collaborate on cutting-edge projects, and find their own intellectual “voice”; encourage students to link fundamental and applied issues in their research; and cultivate the next generation of ecological scientists and educators that reflects the diversity of backgrounds and experiences of students in the United States. Problem Statement Starting in 2005 the National Science Foundation (NSF), as one of the largest funders of undergraduate research programs, began emphasizing the use of project evaluations to both qualitatively and quantitatively measure the success of REU programs (R
Bonanza Creek LTER: Point Bar Vegetation Survey of Bonanza Creek LTER Research Plots (2007-Present)
Beginning in 2007 ocular vegetation estimates were replaced by the point bar system. The point bar is meant to be a more objective way of carrying out annual vegetation surveys. In particular because you are placing the point bar in the same location every time a site is visited, a better understanding of vegetation change over time is possible. This method replaces the old system of estimating percent cover visually (<a href="https://www.lter.uaf.edu/data/data-detail/id/174"> Vegetation Plots of the Bonanza Creek LTER Control Plots: Species Percent Cover (1975 - 2009) </a>), which is often subject to personal bias and small shifts in species composition are often overlooked. Data from both methods were collected during the 2007, 2008, and 2009 field seasons, and regression analysis shows unique and statistically significant relationships between the two methods depending on growth form. At each site, growth forms were evaluated separately, and at each site there is a specific regression model for each growth form. In this way a user can correlate the two methods and data collected before 2007 can be compared to data collected after the new protocol was established.
Tussock watershed thaw depth survey summary for 1990 to present, Arctic Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER), Toolik Research Station, Alaska.
Thaw depth was measured since 1990 using a steel probe in the Tussock watershed just south of Toolik Lake, Alaska, on a gentle slope dominated by moist, non-acidic tussock tundra. At least two surveys are conducted each summer, on 2 July and on 11 August (plus or minus 1 day).
Imnavait Watershed Thaw Depth Survey Summary for 2003 to 2024, Arctic LTER, Toolik Research Station, Alaska.
Thaw depth was measured using a steel probe in the Imnavait Creek watershed, near Toolik Lake, Alaska. The thaw grid includes measurements made from the valley bottom (on both sides of the stream), up the hillslope. The thaw grid is near Imnavait water tracks 7 and 8, and measurements have been made from the 2003 season until present. At least two surveys are conducted each summer, on 2 July and on 11 August (plus or minus a couple of days on either side of those dates).
Environmental Research Lab-Duluth Chemical Lake Survey 1979 - 1982
Chemical survey of 832 lakes in Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin and Ontario conducted by ERL-Duluth and UMD between 1979 and 1982 for evaluation of trophic state and sensitivity to acid deposition Glass, G.E. and Sorenson, J.A. (1994) USEPA ERLD-UMD acid deposition gradient-susceptibility database. U.S. EPA Environmental Research Laboratory - Duluth and University of Minnesota at Duluth, MN. Number of sites: 856 within 832 lakes
GRRIP WP5 - Researcher Survey
<p>This dataset includes the full survey data of the GRRIP project's WP5 Researcher Survey, including documentation about using the dataset and the original survey design.</p> <p>Respondents of this survey work in a research performing or research funding organisation in the marine and maritime sector which is taking part in the GRRIP (Grounding RRI Practices in research performing organisations) project. The survey was conducted as part of auditing the policies and practices of the five marine & maritime organisations involved in GRRIP and to gather respondents' perspectives on these policies and practices.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>About GRRIP</strong><br> GRRIP is an EU-funded project (<a href="https://grrip.eu">grrip.eu</a>) that aims to embed sustainable RRI (responsible re-search and innovation) practices in the marine & maritime sector through institutional and cultural change. GRRIP will embed sustainable RRI practices in these five marine & maritime organisa-tions: The Centre for Marine and Renewable Energy (MaREI), University College Cork, Ireland Plataforma Oceánica de Canarias (Plocan), Gran Canaria WavEC Offshore Renewables, Lisbon, Portugal Institut Universitaire Mer Littoral U.Nantes (IUML), France Swansea University, Wales.</p> <p> </p> <p>-----------<br> <em>This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under Grant Agreement No.</em> <a href="https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/820283"><em>820283</em></a><em>.</em></p>
Data quality assurance at research data repositories: Survey data
<p>This dataset documents findings form a survey on the status quo of data quality assurance practices at research data repositories.</p> <p>The personalized online survey was conducted among repositories indexed in re3data in 2021. It covered the scope of the repository, types of data quality assessment, quality criteria, responsibilities, details of the review process, and data quality information, and yielded 332 complete responses.</p> <p>The dataset comprises a documentation file, the data file, a codebook, and the survey instrument.</p> <p>The <strong>documentation file</strong> (documentation.pdf) outlines details of the survey design and administration, survey response, and data processing. The <strong>data file</strong> (01_survey_data.csv) contains all 332 complete responses to 19 survey questions, fully anonymized. The <strong>codebook</strong> (02_codebook.csv) describes the variables, and the <strong>survey instrument</strong> (03_survey_instrument.pdf) comprises the questionnaire that was distributed to survey participants.</p>
Multi-stakeholder research data management training as a tool to improve the quality, integrity, reliability and reproducibility of research: Quantitative data of the post-course surveys
<p>Data contains doctoral students' and postdoc researchers' (n=168) self-ratings of their RDM competencies before and after the 3 ECTS credits "Basics of Research Data Management" (BRDM) trainings held 2019-2021 in the University of Turku and Åbo Akademi University, Finland. Moreover, data contains respondents' self-reported further learning needs.</p>
GraspOS landscape survey on Reforming Research Assessment
<p><span>This dataset is related to GraspOS Deliverable D2.1 "OS-aware RRA approaches landscape report" (<a title="https://zenodo.org/records/11098095" href="../records/11098095" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">https://zenodo.org/records/11098095</a>), Annex 1. GraspOS landscape survey on Reforming Research Assessment.</span></p>
RRING Global Survey Research Dataset (WP3)
<p>The RRING Work Package 3 (WP3) objective was to clarify how Research Funding Organisations (RFOs) and Research Performing Organisations (RPOs) operated within region-specific research and innovation environments. It explored how they navigated the governance and regulatory frameworks for Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI), as well as offering their perspectives on the entities responsible for RRI-related policy and action in their locales.</p> <p>This data set covers the global survey research part, which was designed to contextualise how RPOs and RFOs interacted within the research environment and with non-academic stakeholders. Countries were grouped according to the UNESCO regions of the world and key results per region are listed below. For a detailed analysis and further findings of the work completed under WP3 of the RRING project, please refer to the full deliverable document "State of the Art of RRI in the Five UNESCO World Regions" [link to be inserted].</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>European and North American States</strong></p> <ul> <li>‘Diverse and inclusive': Respondents were most attitudinally supportive of the importance of ensuring ethical principles were applied in R&I (92%), followed by diverse perspectives (88%), and gender equality (79%). Including ethnic minorities was the area which garnered the least attitudinal support (71%). Respondents took the most practical steps towards engaging with diverse perspectives (63%), and the least towards inclusion of ethnic minorities (24%).</li> <li>‘Anticipative and reflective’: Respondents widely agreed (82%) with the importance of ensuring R&I work does not cause concerns for society, but only 37% confirmed they had taken practical steps to ensure this.</li> <li>‘Open and transparent’: Vast majorities of respondents agreed on the importance of keeping R&I methods open and transparent (94%), with 65% also confirming they take practical steps to do this. An equally high number agreed on the importance of making the results of R&I work accessible to as wide a public as possible (94%), and 68% confirmed this through their reported actions. This indicated the smallest value-action gap of all RRI measures for respondents from European and North American countries. Attitudinal agreement on the importance of making data freely available to the public was lower (83%), as was the practical action aspect for this measure (45%).</li> <li>‘Responsive and adaptive to change’: Most respondents agreed (89%) that it was important to ensure their work addresses societal needs, and 62% confirmed that they take practical steps towards this aim.</li> </ul> <p> </p> <p><strong>Latin American and Caribbean States</strong></p> <ul> <li>‘Diverse and inclusive': Respondents were most attitudinally supportive of the importance of gender equality in R&I (86%), followed by ensuring ethical principles are applied (85%), and diverse perspectives incorporated (83%). Including ethnic minorities was the area which garnered the least attitudinal support (77%). Respondents took the most practical steps towards ensuring ethical principles guide their work (50%), and the least towards including ethnic minorities (25%), but the smallest value action gap was found for gender equality.</li> <li>‘Anticipative and reflective’: Respondents agreed (79%) that it is important to ensure R&I work does not cause concerns for society, but only 29% confirmed they had taken practical steps to ensure this.</li> <li>‘Open and transparent’: The majority of respondents agreed on the importance of keeping R&I methods open and transparent (89%), with 45% indicating they had taken practical action. A majority also agreed on the importance of making the results of R&I work accessible to as wide a public as possible (88%), and 44% backed this up with practical action. Attitudinal agreement on the importance of making data freely available to the public was slightly lower (81%), as was the practical action aspect for this measure (35%).</li> <li>‘Responsive and adaptive to change’: Most respondents agreed (84%) that it was important to ensure their work addresses societal needs, and 49% confirmed that they take practical steps towards this aim.</li> </ul> <p> </p> <p><strong>Asian and Pacific States</strong></p> <ul> <li>‘Diverse and inclusive': Respondents were most attitudinally supportive of the importance of ensuring ethical principles were applied in R&I (90%), followed by diverse perspectives (89%), and gender equality (86%). Including ethnic minorities was the area which garnered the least attitudinal support (76%). Respondents took the most practical steps towards engaging with diverse perspectives (65%), and the least towards including ethnic minorities (30%).</li> <li>‘Anticipative and reflective’: Respondents widely agreed (78%) with the importance of ensuring R&I work does not cause concerns for society, and 42% confirmed they had taken practical steps to ensure this.</li> <li>‘Open and transparent’: The majority of respondents agreed on the importance of keeping R&I methods open and transparent (91%), with 58% indicating they take practical steps to do this. A majority also agreed on the importance of making the results of R&I work accessible to as wide a public as possible (89%), and 64% backed this up with practical action. Attitudinal agreement on the importance of making data freely available to the public was lower (79%), as was the practical action aspect for this measure (40%).</li> <li>‘Responsive and adaptive to change’: Most respondents agreed (92%) that it was important to ensure their work addresses societal needs, and 69% confirmed that they take practical steps towards this aim. This was the RRI measure with the smallest valueaction gap for respondents from the Asian and Pacific region.</li> </ul> <p> </p> <p><strong>Arab States</strong></p> <ul> <li>‘Diverse and inclusive': Respondents were most attitudinally supportive of the importance of ensuring ethical principles were applied in R&I (93%), followed by diverse perspectives (81%), and gender equality (85%). Including ethnic minorities was the area which garnered the least attitudinal support (74%). Respondents took the most practical steps towards engaging with diverse perspectives (66%), which equated to one of two equally small value-action gaps for respondents from Arab states, and the least practical steps towards inclusion of ethnic minorities (22%).</li> <li>‘Anticipative and reflective’: A high proportion of respondents (85%) agreed that it is important to ensure R&I work does not cause concerns for society. However, only 38% confirmed they had taken practical steps to ensure this.</li> <li>‘Open and transparent’: The majority of respondents agreed on the importance of keeping R&I methods open and transparent (89%), with 59% also confirming they take practical steps to do this. A majority also agreed on the importance of making the results of R&I work accessible to as wide a public as possible (90%), and 66% backed this up with practical action. Ensuring public accessibility of research results was the second of two measures with equally small value-action gaps. Attitudinal agreement on the importance of making data freely available to the public was much lower (78%), which also reflected the practical action aspect for this measure (49%).</li> <li>‘Responsive and adaptive to change’: Most respondents agreed (96%) that it was important to ensure their work addresses societal needs, and 68% confirmed that they take practical steps to achieve this.</li> </ul> <p><strong>African States</strong></p> <ul> <li>‘Diverse and inclusive': Respondents were most attitudinally supportive of the importance of ensuring engagement with diverse perspectives and expertise in R&I (91%), followed by ensuring ethical principles are applied (90%), and gender equality (89%). Including ethnic minorities was the area which garnered the least attitudinal support (74%). Respondents took the most practical steps towards ensuring ethical principles guide their work (57%), and the least towards including ethnic minorities (32%).</li> <li>‘Anticipative and reflective’: The majority of respondents (85%) agreed that it is important to ensure R&I work does not cause concerns for society, with 59% confirming that they take practical steps to ensure this.</li> <li>‘Open and transparent’: A high proportion of respondents agreed on the importance of keeping R&I methods open and transparent (90%), with 54% also confirming they take practical steps to do this. A majority also agreed on the importance of making the results of R&I work accessible to as wide a public as possible (86%), and 56% backed this up with practical action. Attitudinal agreement on the importance of making data freely available to the public was significantly lower (73%), as was the practical action aspect for this measure (38%).</li> <li>‘Responsive and adaptive to change’: Respondents mostly agreed (92%) that it was important to ensure their work addresses societal needs, and 64% confirmed that they take practical steps towards this aim. This was the RRI measure with the smallest valueaction gap for respondents from African states.</li> </ul> <p> </p> <p><em>Note: Please refer to the "RRING WP3 - Survey Data Documentation" document for detailed instructions on how to use this dataset.</em></p>
UKRI Digital Research Infrastructure Mapping Survey Dataset (for Net Zero Scoping Project)
<p>This dataset was generated as an output for the DRI Mapping exercise carried out during the UKRI Net Zero Digital Research Infrastructure (DRI) Scoping Project undertaken from 2021-2023. The "README.md" provides more information about the dataset and how to use it.</p> <p>The report associated with this dataset is available at:</p> <p>https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7805987</p>
Kawe Gidaa-naanaagadawendaamin Manoomin Tribal-University Research Collaborative, University of Minnesota, Manoomin / Psiη (Wild Rice) Density Survey for Northern Minnesota and Wisconsin Waters
Wild Rice (Ojibwemowin: Manoomin; Dakodiapi: Psiŋ; Latin: Zizania palustris) abundance, harvest, and water level data, across the upper Great Lakes region collected by tribal organizations.
Dataset with the results of the e-infrastructures Austria National Survey about Research Data
<p>This is the dataset accompanying the report with the results of our national survey regarding the management of research data</p>
OpenUP survey on researchers' current perceptions and practices in peer review, impact measurement and dissemination of research results
<p>OpenUP project (http://openup-h2020.eu/) conducted a survey to capture current perceptions and practices in peer review, dissemination of research results and impact measurement among European researchers. The survey was coducted between 20 January and 23 February 2017. It consisted of four sections. The first section asked a series of questions on the respondents’ scientific discipline, career stage, gender and other characteristics. The following sections asked a series of questions on peer review practices, dissemination of research results and impact measurement/use of altmetrics. The questionnaire was collaboratively prepared by the OpenUP consortium. </p> <p>The survey was implemented via surveygizmo tool (https://www.surveygizmo.com/). Invitations to participate were sent to a random sample of researchers from arXiv, Pubmed and RePEc. The OpenUP team mined researchers’ contact details from these platforms. The OpenUP project team made efforts to further boost the repondent sample for certain underrepresented areas through the DARIAH website, THESIS network, EURODOC, AIMS portal, the Parthenos community and other channels. The survey targeted researchers from the EU-28, Switzerland and Norway. The goal was to get around 1,000 responses. In total, there were 976 completed response and completion rate was 72.4%. </p> <p>The attached documents include the questionnaire and the dataset. In the dataset (cvs file) the top row contains numbered questions that correspond to the numberring in the questionnaire (word file). The data was exported as an excel file, anonymised by creating respondent IDs and IP data were deleted. The file was then converted to CSV.</p> <p> </p>
Research Data Alliance Interest Group Professionalising Data Stewardship Career Tracks Survey Dataset
<p>This is the final dataset resulting from the data steward Career Tracks survey that the Reseach Data Alliance (RDA) Interest Group Professionalising Data Stewardship carried out in 2022. Data stewards were defined as professionals who aim at guaranteeing that data is appropriately treated in all stages of the research cycle (i.e., design, collection, processing, analysis, preservation, data sharing and reuse); we invited responses from participants who either now or in the past carried out data stewardship functions, regardless of their job title. The survey asked respondents about their job titles, the organizational context in which they work(ed) including contract types and domains, their educational background, and how they perceive their professional future. </p><p>This dataset publication includes:</p><ol><li>Survey response data in CSV format. The file includes data from 241 respondents who consented to participate in the survey and share the data via a repsoitory, who indicated that they either currently work or have worked in the past in a data stewardship role, and who responded to at least one further question.</li><li>Thematic analysis of the qualitative questions Q11 and Q12 in PDF format.</li></ol>
Small Group and Survey Datasets: "Fostering Metacognition and Feedback Loops in a Summer Undergraduate Research Program: A Pilot Study"
<p>These datasets accompany the paper "Fostering Metacognition and Feedback Loops in a Summer Undergraduate Research Program: A Pilot Study" by Chad Curtis PhD and Kaytlin Gomez.</p> <p>The first dataset consists of free responses from n=12 students researchers during a Small Group Metacognitive Practice (SGMP) intervention conducted during the 2023 INBRE Summer Undergraduate Research Fellowship (iSURF) at Nevada State University. The files include:</p> <ul> <li><strong>transcription.docx</strong>: Transcriptions of both individual (n=12) and small group (n=4) responses from the SGMP session.</li> <li><strong>codingR1.xlsx</strong>: Codings used for the thematic analysis, as coded by the primary investigator.</li> <li><strong>codingR2.xlsx: </strong>Codings used for the thematic analysis, as coded by the co-author.</li> <li><strong>KrippendorffAlpha.xlsx</strong>: Inter-coder reliability calculations using Krippendorff's alpha.</li> </ul> <p>The survey data was collected from n=11 participants at the end of the summer research program. The files include:</p> <ul> <li><strong>surveyData.csv</strong>: Anonymized responses to survey questions regarding the SGMP intervention.</li> </ul> <p>This study was approved by the Nevada State University Review Board (Protocol #2305-0346). All procedures in the study were conducted in accordance with approved protocols. Written informed consent was obtained from the subjects for their anonymized information to be published with the article.</p>
Survey: Qualitative FGI research on the processing, sourcing, utilisation and management of wood biomass (NCN) DEC-2020/39/I/HS4/03533
<p>The dataset contains the proceedings of a qualitative FGI of representatives of wood biomass processing and harvesting companies. The research was conducted from 5 July 2022 to 7 July 2022 using only the FGI method. The survey was conducted in face-to-face meetings among respondents.<br>The study was funded by National Science Centre in Poland under agreement National Center of Science (NCN) through grant DEC-2020/39/I/HS4/03533</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.