cometadata/datacite-titles-descriptions-related-identifiers huggingface dataset:
DOI: 10.3886/e185342v3
title: ECIN Replication Package For "Invisible Hurdles: Gender and Institutional Differences in the Evaluation of Economics Papers"

description: This replication package accompanies the paper titled "Invisible Hurdles: Gender and Institutional Differences in the Evaluation of Economics Papers" and includes data and code.<br><br>Abstract of the paper:<br> How might the visibility of an author’s name and/or institutional affiliation allow bias to enter the evaluation of economics papers? We ask highly qualified journal editors to review abstracts of solo-authored papers which differ along the dimensions of gender and institution of the author. We exogenously vary whether editors observe the name and/or institution of the author. We identify positive name visibility effects for female economists and positive institution visibility effects for economists at the top institutions. Our results suggest that male economists at top institutions benefit the most from non-blind evaluations, followed by female economists (regardless of their institution).<br>
description: no weights are used.<br>
description: Response Rates: Out of 981 editors in our recruitment sample, 165 editors completed our survey experiment. <br>
description: Presence of Common Scales: A 7-item likert scale was used for one of our questions (subjective quality question).<br>
description: To create our recruitment pool, we start with a ranked list of top 100 journals by simple impact factors downloaded from RePEc. Then, we choose 42 journals from this list. From each journal’s website, we collect names and email addresses of the editors, co-editors, associate editors, board of editors, and board of reviewers. If the email addresses are not reported on the journal’s websites, we find the email addresses either on the personal websites or on department websites of the editors. This exercise gives us a list of 1029 editors. Some editors appear more than once in our list since they serve on the editorial board of more than one journal. Dropping these duplicates and dropping the editors whose abstracts are used in the experiment, we have a list of 981 unique editors in our recruitment pool.<br><br> We conducted a stratified randomization based on the rankings of the journals with which the editors in our recruitment pool are associated. To do so, we first categorize the journals into four strata based on their rankings so that we have an approximately equal number of editors in the recruitment pool in each category. Within each stratum, we randomly assign the editors in the recruitment pool to one of the waves of the experiment. Then, within each wave and strata, we randomly assign the editors in our recruitment pool into one of the four treatments such that we have an equal number of editors from the recruitment pool in our treatments.<br><br>
description: web-based survey;
DOI: 10.3886/e185342
title: ECIN Replication Package For "Invisible Hurdles: Gender and Institutional Differences in the Evaluation of Economics Papers"

description: This replication package accompanies the paper titled "Invisible Hurdles: Gender and Institutional Differences in the Evaluation of Economics Papers" and includes data and code.<br><br>Abstract of the paper:<br> How might the visibility of an author’s name and/or institutional affiliation allow bias to enter the evaluation of economics papers? We ask highly qualified journal editors to review abstracts of solo-authored papers which differ along the dimensions of gender and institution of the author. We exogenously vary whether editors observe the name and/or institution of the author. We identify positive name visibility effects for female economists and positive institution visibility effects for economists at the top institutions. Our results suggest that male economists at top institutions benefit the most from non-blind evaluations, followed by female economists (regardless of their institution).<br>
description: no weights are used.<br>
description: Response Rates: Out of 981 editors in our recruitment sample, 165 editors completed our survey experiment. <br>
description: Presence of Common Scales: A 7-item likert scale was used for one of our questions (subjective quality question).<br>
description: To create our recruitment pool, we start with a ranked list of top 100 journals by simple impact factors downloaded from RePEc. Then, we choose 42 journals from this list. From each journal’s website, we collect names and email addresses of the editors, co-editors, associate editors, board of editors, and board of reviewers. If the email addresses are not reported on the journal’s websites, we find the email addresses either on the personal websites or on department websites of the editors. This exercise gives us a list of 1029 editors. Some editors appear more than once in our list since they serve on the editorial board of more than one journal. Dropping these duplicates and dropping the editors whose abstracts are used in the experiment, we have a list of 981 unique editors in our recruitment pool.<br><br> We conducted a stratified randomization based on the rankings of the journals with which the editors in our recruitment pool are associated. To do so, we first categorize the journals into four strata based on their rankings so that we have an approximately equal number of editors in the recruitment pool in each category. Within each stratum, we randomly assign the editors in the recruitment pool to one of the waves of the experiment. Then, within each wave and strata, we randomly assign the editors in our recruitment pool into one of the four treatments such that we have an equal number of editors from the recruitment pool in our treatments.<br><br>
description: web-based survey;
DOI: 10.3886/e185342v1
title: ECIN Replication Package For "Invisible Hurdles: Gender and Institutional Differences in the Evaluation of Economics Papers"

description: This replication package accompanies the paper titled "Invisible Hurdles: Gender and Institutional Differences in the Evaluation of Economics Papers" and includes data and code.<br><br>Abstract of the paper:<br> How might the visibility of an author’s name and/or institutional affiliation allow bias to enter the evaluation of economics papers? We ask highly qualified journal editors to review abstracts of solo-authored papers which differ along the dimensions of gender and institution of the author. We exogenously vary whether editors observe the name and/or institution of the author. We identify positive name visibility effects for female economists and positive institution visibility effects for economists at the top institutions. Our results suggest that male economists at top institutions benefit the most from non-blind evaluations, followed by female economists (regardless of their institution).<br>
description: no weights are used.<br>
description: Response Rates: Out of 981 editors in our recruitment sample, 165 editors completed our survey experiment. <br>
description: Presence of Common Scales: A 7-item likert scale was used for one of our questions (subjective quality question).<br>
description: To create our recruitment pool, we start with a ranked list of top 100 journals by simple impact factors downloaded from RePEc. Then, we choose 42 journals from this list. From each journal’s website, we collect names and email addresses of the editors, co-editors, associate editors, board of editors, and board of reviewers. If the email addresses are not reported on the journal’s websites, we find the email addresses either on the personal websites or on department websites of the editors. This exercise gives us a list of 1029 editors. Some editors appear more than once in our list since they serve on the editorial board of more than one journal. Dropping these duplicates and dropping the editors whose abstracts are used in the experiment, we have a list of 981 unique editors in our recruitment pool.<br><br> We conducted a stratified randomization based on the rankings of the journals with which the editors in our recruitment pool are associated. To do so, we first categorize the journals into four strata based on their rankings so that we have an approximately equal number of editors in the recruitment pool in each category. Within each stratum, we randomly assign the editors in the recruitment pool to one of the waves of the experiment. Then, within each wave and strata, we randomly assign the editors in our recruitment pool into one of the four treatments such that we have an equal number of editors from the recruitment pool in our treatments.<br><br>
description: web-based survey;
DOI: 10.3886/e185342v2
title: ECIN Replication Package For "Invisible Hurdles: Gender and Institutional Differences in the Evaluation of Economics Papers"

description: This replication package accompanies the paper titled "Invisible Hurdles: Gender and Institutional Differences in the Evaluation of Economics Papers" and includes data and code.<br><br>Abstract of the paper:<br> How might the visibility of an author’s name and/or institutional affiliation allow bias to enter the evaluation of economics papers? We ask highly qualified journal editors to review abstracts of solo-authored papers which differ along the dimensions of gender and institution of the author. We exogenously vary whether editors observe the name and/or institution of the author. We identify positive name visibility effects for female economists and positive institution visibility effects for economists at the top institutions. Our results suggest that male economists at top institutions benefit the most from non-blind evaluations, followed by female economists (regardless of their institution).<br>
description: no weights are used.<br>
description: Response Rates: Out of 981 editors in our recruitment sample, 165 editors completed our survey experiment. <br>
description: Presence of Common Scales: A 7-item likert scale was used for one of our questions (subjective quality question).<br>
description: To create our recruitment pool, we start with a ranked list of top 100 journals by simple impact factors downloaded from RePEc. Then, we choose 42 journals from this list. From each journal’s website, we collect names and email addresses of the editors, co-editors, associate editors, board of editors, and board of reviewers. If the email addresses are not reported on the journal’s websites, we find the email addresses either on the personal websites or on department websites of the editors. This exercise gives us a list of 1029 editors. Some editors appear more than once in our list since they serve on the editorial board of more than one journal. Dropping these duplicates and dropping the editors whose abstracts are used in the experiment, we have a list of 981 unique editors in our recruitment pool.<br><br> We conducted a stratified randomization based on the rankings of the journals with which the editors in our recruitment pool are associated. To do so, we first categorize the journals into four strata based on their rankings so that we have an approximately equal number of editors in the recruitment pool in each category. Within each stratum, we randomly assign the editors in the recruitment pool to one of the waves of the experiment. Then, within each wave and strata, we randomly assign the editors in our recruitment pool into one of the four treatments such that we have an equal number of editors from the recruitment pool in our treatments.<br><br>
description: web-based survey;
DOI: 10.3886/e185342v4
title: ECIN Replication Package For "Invisible Hurdles: Gender and Institutional Differences in the Evaluation of Economics Papers"

description: This replication package accompanies the paper titled "Invisible Hurdles: Gender and Institutional Differences in the Evaluation of Economics Papers" and includes data and code.<br><br>Abstract of the paper:<br> How might the visibility of an author’s name and/or institutional affiliation allow bias to enter the evaluation of economics papers? We ask highly qualified journal editors to review abstracts of solo-authored papers which differ along the dimensions of gender and institution of the author. We exogenously vary whether editors observe the name and/or institution of the author. We identify positive name visibility effects for female economists and positive institution visibility effects for economists at the top institutions. Our results suggest that male economists at top institutions benefit the most from non-blind evaluations, followed by female economists (regardless of their institution).<br>
description: no weights are used.<br>
description: Response Rates: Out of 981 editors in our recruitment sample, 165 editors completed our survey experiment. <br>
description: Presence of Common Scales: A 7-item likert scale was used for one of our questions (subjective quality question).<br>
description: To create our recruitment pool, we start with a ranked list of top 100 journals by simple impact factors downloaded from RePEc. Then, we choose 42 journals from this list. From each journal’s website, we collect names and email addresses of the editors, co-editors, associate editors, board of editors, and board of reviewers. If the email addresses are not reported on the journal’s websites, we find the email addresses either on the personal websites or on department websites of the editors. This exercise gives us a list of 1029 editors. Some editors appear more than once in our list since they serve on the editorial board of more than one journal. Dropping these duplicates and dropping the editors whose abstracts are used in the experiment, we have a list of 981 unique editors in our recruitment pool.<br><br> We conducted a stratified randomization based on the rankings of the journals with which the editors in our recruitment pool are associated. To do so, we first categorize the journals into four strata based on their rankings so that we have an approximately equal number of editors in the recruitment pool in each category. Within each stratum, we randomly assign the editors in the recruitment pool to one of the waves of the experiment. Then, within each wave and strata, we randomly assign the editors in our recruitment pool into one of the four treatments such that we have an equal number of editors from the recruitment pool in our treatments.<br><br>
description: web-based survey;
DOI: 10.7284/148580
title: CTD (Conductivity, Temperature, Depth) data collected during research cruise LMG0705 using a SeaBird SBE-911+ instrument system onboard the platform RV Laurence M. Gould

description: Original (unprocessed) data collected during a Field_expedition
DOI: 10.7284/148581
title: Expendable Probe data collected during research cruise LMG0705 using a Sippican MK21 instrument system onboard the platform RV Laurence M. Gould

description: Original (unprocessed) data collected during a Field_expedition
DOI: 10.7284/148780
title: Fluorometer data collected during research cruise LMG0705 using a Turner 10-AU instrument system onboard the platform RV Laurence M. Gould

description: Original (unprocessed) data collected during a Field_expedition
DOI: 10.7284/148530
title: GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite System) data collected during research cruise LMG0705 using a Ashtech ADU2 instrument system onboard the platform RV Laurence M. Gould

description: Original (unprocessed) data collected during a Field_expedition
DOI: 10.7284/148531
title: GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite System) data collected during research cruise LMG0705 using a Garmin GPS-17HVS instrument system onboard the platform RV Laurence M. Gould

description: Original (unprocessed) data collected during a Field_expedition
DOI: 10.7284/148532
title: GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite System) data collected during research cruise LMG0705 using a Trimble Centurion P(Y) instrument system onboard the platform RV Laurence M. Gould

description: Original (unprocessed) data collected during a Field_expedition
DOI: 10.7284/148533
title: Gyrocompass data collected during research cruise LMG0705 using a SGB Meridian instrument system onboard the platform RV Laurence M. Gould

description: Original (unprocessed) data collected during a Field_expedition
DOI: 10.3886/e170502
title: Data and Code for Energy Saving May Kill: Evidence from the Fukushima Nuclear Accident

description: Abstract: Following the Fukushima nuclear accident, Japan gradually shut down all its nuclear power plants, causing a countrywide power shortage. In response, the government launched large-scale energy-saving campaigns to reduce electricity consumption. Exploiting the electricity-saving targets across regions and over time, we show that the campaigns significantly increased mortality, particularly during extremely hot days. The impact is primarily driven by people using less air conditioning, as encouraged by the government. Nonpecuniary incentives can explain most of the reduction in electricity consumption. Our findings suggest there exists a trade-off between climate change mitigation and climate change adaptation.
description: Mortality and temperature data are based on all the Japanese populations. Smallest Geographic Unit: Prefecture
DOI: 10.3886/e170502v1
title: Data and Code for Energy Saving May Kill: Evidence from the Fukushima Nuclear Accident

description: Abstract: Following the Fukushima nuclear accident, Japan gradually shut down all its nuclear power plants, causing a countrywide power shortage. In response, the government launched large-scale energy-saving campaigns to reduce electricity consumption. Exploiting the electricity-saving targets across regions and over time, we show that the campaigns significantly increased mortality, particularly during extremely hot days. The impact is primarily driven by people using less air conditioning, as encouraged by the government. Nonpecuniary incentives can explain most of the reduction in electricity consumption. Our findings suggest there exists a trade-off between climate change mitigation and climate change adaptation.
description: Mortality and temperature data are based on all the Japanese populations. Smallest Geographic Unit: Prefecture
DOI: 10.7284/152306
title: CTD (Conductivity, Temperature, Depth) data collected during research cruise LMG0808 using a SeaBird SBE-911+ instrument system onboard the platform RV Laurence M. Gould

description: Original (unprocessed) data collected during a Field_expedition
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.22251346
title: Alignments and phylogenetic trees for Penicillium corticola

description: Raw alignments and phylogenetic trees generated for the description of the novel species Penicillium corticola
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.22251346.v1
title: Alignments and phylogenetic trees for Penicillium corticola

description: Raw alignments and phylogenetic trees generated for the description of the novel species Penicillium corticola
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.22251343
title: input_figS1_B_calnexin

description: This dataset contains data used to generate panel S1B for calnexin in a preprint manuscript from the Misteli Lab at the National Cancer Institute/NIH. Title: Activation of endoplasmic reticulum stress in premature aging via the inner nuclear membrane protein SUN2 Authors: Vidak, Sandra; Serebryannyy, Leonid A.; Pegoraro, Gianluca; Misteli, Tom Link: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.14.460295v2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.09.14.460295
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.22251343.v1
title: input_figS1_B_calnexin

description: This dataset contains data used to generate panel S1B for calnexin in a preprint manuscript from the Misteli Lab at the National Cancer Institute/NIH. Title: Activation of endoplasmic reticulum stress in premature aging via the inner nuclear membrane protein SUN2 Authors: Vidak, Sandra; Serebryannyy, Leonid A.; Pegoraro, Gianluca; Misteli, Tom Link: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.14.460295v2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.09.14.460295
DOI: 10.7284/152252
title: CTD (Conductivity, Temperature, Depth) data collected during research cruise LMG0810 using a SeaBird SBE-911+ instrument system onboard the platform RV Laurence M. Gould

description: Original (unprocessed) data collected during a Field_expedition
DOI: 10.7284/152127
title: GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite System) data collected during research cruise LMG0810 using a Ashtech ADU2 instrument system onboard the platform RV Laurence M. Gould

description: Original (unprocessed) data collected during a Field_expedition
DOI: 10.7284/152152
title: GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite System) data collected during research cruise LMG0810 using a Garmin GPS-17HVS instrument system onboard the platform RV Laurence M. Gould

description: Original (unprocessed) data collected during a Field_expedition
DOI: 10.7284/152141
title: Gyrocompass data collected during research cruise LMG0810 using a SGB Meridian instrument system onboard the platform RV Laurence M. Gould

description: Original (unprocessed) data collected during a Field_expedition
DOI: 10.7284/152159
title: TSG (Thermosalinograph) data collected during research cruise LMG0810 using a SeaBird SBE-45 instrument system onboard the platform RV Laurence M. Gould

description: Original (unprocessed) data collected during a Field_expedition
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7332490
title: ConPlag: a Dataset of Programming Contest Plagiarism in Java

description: This package presents ConPlag, the first dataset of programming contest plagiarism in Java. To find the details about how to use the dataset and how to run tools on it, please refer to the README.
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7332491
title: ConPlag: a Dataset of Programming Contest Plagiarism in Java

description: This package presents ConPlag, the first dataset of programming contest plagiarism in Java. To find the details about how to use the dataset and how to run tools on it, please refer to the README.
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7332748
title: ConPlag: a Dataset of Programming Contest Plagiarism in Java

description: This package presents ConPlag, the first dataset of programming contest plagiarism in Java. To find the details about how to use the dataset and how to run tools on it, please refer to the README.
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7332790
title: ConPlag: a Dataset of Programming Contest Plagiarism in Java

description: This package presents ConPlag, the first dataset of programming contest plagiarism in Java. To find the details about how to use the dataset and how to run tools on it, please refer to the README.
DOI: 10.34740/kaggle/dsv/5142358
title: Nigerian Presidential Election 2023 Tweets
DOI: 10.7284/152090
title: CTD (Conductivity, Temperature, Depth) data collected during research cruise LMG0901 using a SeaBird SBE-911+ instrument system onboard the platform RV Laurence M. Gould

description: Original (unprocessed) data collected during a Field_expedition
DOI: 10.7284/152092
title: Expendable Probe data collected during research cruise LMG0901 using a Sippican MK21 instrument system onboard the platform RV Laurence M. Gould

description: Original (unprocessed) data collected during a Field_expedition
DOI: 10.7284/152093
title: Expendable Probe data collected during research cruise LMG0901 using a Sippican MK21 instrument system onboard the platform RV Laurence M. Gould

description: Original (unprocessed) data collected during a Field_expedition
DOI: 10.7284/152129
title: GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite System) data collected during research cruise LMG0901 using a Ashtech ADU2 instrument system onboard the platform RV Laurence M. Gould

description: Original (unprocessed) data collected during a Field_expedition
DOI: 10.7284/152139
title: GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite System) data collected during research cruise LMG0901 using a Garmin 19x instrument system onboard the platform RV Laurence M. Gould

description: Original (unprocessed) data collected during a Field_expedition
DOI: 10.7284/152131
title: Gyrocompass data collected during research cruise LMG0901 using a SGB Meridian instrument system onboard the platform RV Laurence M. Gould

description: Original (unprocessed) data collected during a Field_expedition