cometadata/datacite-titles-descriptions-related-identifiers huggingface dataset:
DOI: 10.15468/dl.rb7j75
title: Occurrence Download

description: A dataset containing 0 species occurrences available in GBIF matching the query:
{"type":"and","predicates":[{"type":"within","geometry":"POLYGON ((102.882 5.807142, 102.811378 5.801571, 102.742498 5.784996, 102.677061 5.757826, 102.616681 5.720732, 102.562846 5.674628, 102.516881 5.620653, 102.479919 5.560135, 102.452867 5.494569, 102.436389 5.425568, 102.430887 5.354834, 102.436492 5.284108, 102.453062 5.21513, 102.480187 5.1496, 102.517197 5.089128, 102.563177 5.035202, 102.616996 4.989149, 102.677329 4.9521, 102.742693 4.924966, 102.81148 4.908414, 102.882 4.902852, 102.95252 4.908414, 103.021307 4.924966, 103.086671 4.9521, 103.147004 4.989149, 103.200823 5.035202, 103.246803 5.089128, 103.283813 5.1496, 103.310938 5.21513, 103.327508 5.284108, 103.333113 5.354834, 103.327611 5.425568, 103.311133 5.494569, 103.284081 5.560135, 103.247119 5.620653, 103.201154 5.674628, 103.147319 5.720732, 103.086939 5.757826, 103.021502 5.784996, 102.952622 5.801571, 102.882 5.807142))"},{"type":"equals","key":"CLASS_KEY","value":"212","matchCase":false},{"type":"greaterThanOrEquals","key":"YEAR","value":"2015","matchCase":false},{"type":"not","predicate":{"type":"in","key":"BASIS_OF_RECORD","values":["MATERIAL_CITATION","MATERIAL_SAMPLE","PRESERVED_SPECIMEN"],"matchCase":false}},{"type":"lessThanOrEquals","key":"COORDINATE_UNCERTAINTY_IN_METERS","value":"10000","matchCase":false},{"type":"equals","key":"LICENSE","value":"CC BY 4.0","matchCase":false}]}

 The dataset includes 0 records from 0 constituent datasets; see https://api.gbif.org/v1/occurrence/download/0002189-260120142942310/datasets/export for details.
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18324703
title: Identification of candidate biomarker MRPL23 and its prognostic potential in non-small cell lung cancer with emphasis on the squamous cell carcinoma subtype
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18324704
title: Identification of candidate biomarker MRPL23 and its prognostic potential in non-small cell lung cancer with emphasis on the squamous cell carcinoma subtype
DOI: 10.15468/dl.uhq78h
title: Occurrence Download

description: A dataset containing 1 species occurrences available in GBIF matching the query:
{
 "and" : [
 "OccurrenceStatus is Present",
 "TaxonKey is Mollisquama mississippiensis"
 ]
}

 The dataset includes 1 records from 1 constituent datasets; see https://api.gbif.org/v1/occurrence/download/0002190-260120142942310/datasets/export for details.
 
Data from some individual datasets included in this download may be licensed under less restrictive terms.
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18324450
title: RISE UP Language Revitalisation Questionnaire Data

description: This questionnaire was created and conducted in the course of the RISE UP Project (February 2023 - January 2026), which is a Horizon Europe-funded project, focused on revitalising minoritised languages (www.riseupproject.eu). The online questionnaire created in MS Forms was open to members of the Aranese, Aromanian/Vlach, Burgenland Croatian, Cornish and Seto communities. The focus was on intra-community perceptions of the current status of the respective languages, as well as available resources, factors of endangerment, and more. 

Overall, it received 546 answers across all five communities. The exact questions were adapted slightly to the five communities (with some questions featuring only in individual questionnaires), and the questionnaire was available in Aranese, Spanish and Catalan (Aranese questionnaire), Aromanian, Albanian, Bulgarian, English, Greek, Macedonian, Serbian and Romanian (Aromanian/Vlach questionnaire), Burgenland Croatian and German (Burgenland Croatian questionnaire), Cornish and English (Cornish questionnaire), and Seto, Estonian and Russian (Seto questionnaire). The questionnaire data includes both quantitative and qualitative answers, with the majority of qualitative answers in Aranese and Cornish having been translated to English, and the majority of qualitative answers in Burgenland Croatian having been translated to German. 

The questionnaire was created, conducted, cleaned and analysed in a collaborative effort by the RISE UP partners M&S, UT, UNIVIE, ESPRONCEDA, YEN, SOAS and RU. Questions regarding the questionnaire data may be directed at Eva Vetter (eva.vetter@univie.ac.at). 

For reference, the Cornish master version of the original questionnaire is included in the appendix of RISE UP’s Deliverable 3.1 (https://www.riseupproject.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/RISE-UP_D3.1_Linguistic-ecosystems_1.1.pdf).
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18324451
title: RISE UP Language Revitalisation Questionnaire Data

description: This questionnaire was created and conducted in the course of the RISE UP Project (February 2023 - January 2026), which is a Horizon Europe-funded project, focused on revitalising minoritised languages (www.riseupproject.eu). The online questionnaire created in MS Forms was open to members of the Aranese, Aromanian/Vlach, Burgenland Croatian, Cornish and Seto communities. The focus was on intra-community perceptions of the current status of the respective languages, as well as available resources, factors of endangerment, and more. 

Overall, it received 546 answers across all five communities. The exact questions were adapted slightly to the five communities (with some questions featuring only in individual questionnaires), and the questionnaire was available in Aranese, Spanish and Catalan (Aranese questionnaire), Aromanian, Albanian, Bulgarian, English, Greek, Macedonian, Serbian and Romanian (Aromanian/Vlach questionnaire), Burgenland Croatian and German (Burgenland Croatian questionnaire), Cornish and English (Cornish questionnaire), and Seto, Estonian and Russian (Seto questionnaire). The questionnaire data includes both quantitative and qualitative answers, with the majority of qualitative answers in Aranese and Cornish having been translated to English, and the majority of qualitative answers in Burgenland Croatian having been translated to German. 

The questionnaire was created, conducted, cleaned and analysed in a collaborative effort by the RISE UP partners M&S, UT, UNIVIE, ESPRONCEDA, YEN, SOAS and RU. Questions regarding the questionnaire data may be directed at Eva Vetter (eva.vetter@univie.ac.at). 

For reference, the Cornish master version of the original questionnaire is included in the appendix of RISE UP’s Deliverable 3.1 (https://www.riseupproject.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/RISE-UP_D3.1_Linguistic-ecosystems_1.1.pdf).
DOI: 10.15468/dl.cxzatq
title: Occurrence Download

description: A dataset containing 2 species occurrences available in GBIF matching the query:
{
 "and" : [
 "OccurrenceStatus is Present",
 "TaxonKey is Mollisquama parini"
 ]
}

 The dataset includes 2 records from 2 constituent datasets; see https://api.gbif.org/v1/occurrence/download/0002192-260120142942310/datasets/export for details.
 
Data from some individual datasets included in this download may be licensed under less restrictive terms.
DOI: 10.15468/dl.4sh7r3
title: Occurrence Download

description: A dataset containing 30 species occurrences available in GBIF matching the query:
{
 "and" : [
 "Country is China",
 "HasCoordinate is true",
 "HasGeospatialIssue is false",
 "TaxonKey is Carex dimorpholepis",
 "Year 1960-2010"
 ]
}

 The dataset includes 30 records from 4 constituent datasets; see https://api.gbif.org/v1/occurrence/download/0002193-260120142942310/datasets/export for details.
 
Data from some individual datasets included in this download may be licensed under less restrictive terms.
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17815668
title: Dataset "Can a fundamental change in forest management improve the forest carbon balance of mixed oak forests in Central Europe?"

description: This repository contains the data along with the R scripts used for data porcessing, statistical analyses and figure generation in the associated manuscript.
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17815669
title: Dataset "Can a fundamental change in forest management improve the forest carbon balance of mixed oak forests in Central Europe?"

description: This repository contains the data along with the R scripts used for data porcessing, statistical analyses and figure generation in the associated manuscript.
DOI: 10.15468/dl.kxdp6g
title: Occurrence Download

description: A dataset containing 0 species occurrences available in GBIF matching the query:
{"type":"and","predicates":[{"type":"within","geometry":"POLYGON ((101.239 1.512182, 101.168713 1.506614, 101.100157 1.490048, 101.035022 1.46289, 100.974912 1.425811, 100.921308 1.379723, 100.875528 1.325763, 100.838702 1.265259, 100.811733 1.199701, 100.795287 1.130704, 100.789766 1.059967, 100.795307 0.989232, 100.811771 0.920239, 100.838754 0.854689, 100.87559 0.794194, 100.921373 0.740243, 100.974974 0.6941659999999999, 101.035075 0.657095, 101.100196 0.629945, 101.168733 0.613383, 101.239 0.607816, 101.309267 0.613383, 101.377804 0.629945, 101.442925 0.657095, 101.503026 0.6941659999999999, 101.556627 0.740243, 101.60241 0.794194, 101.639246 0.854689, 101.666229 0.920239, 101.682693 0.989232, 101.688234 1.059967, 101.682713 1.130704, 101.666267 1.199701, 101.639298 1.265259, 101.602472 1.325763, 101.556692 1.379723, 101.503088 1.425811, 101.442978 1.46289, 101.377843 1.490048, 101.309287 1.506614, 101.239 1.512182))"},{"type":"equals","key":"CLASS_KEY","value":"212","matchCase":false},{"type":"greaterThanOrEquals","key":"YEAR","value":"2015","matchCase":false},{"type":"not","predicate":{"type":"in","key":"BASIS_OF_RECORD","values":["MATERIAL_CITATION","MATERIAL_SAMPLE","PRESERVED_SPECIMEN"],"matchCase":false}},{"type":"lessThanOrEquals","key":"COORDINATE_UNCERTAINTY_IN_METERS","value":"10000","matchCase":false},{"type":"equals","key":"LICENSE","value":"CC BY 4.0","matchCase":false}]}

 The dataset includes 0 records from 0 constituent datasets; see https://api.gbif.org/v1/occurrence/download/0002194-260120142942310/datasets/export for details.
DOI: 10.17877/de290m-2
title: Prospeccts - PROtein Site Pairs for the Evaluation of Cavity Comparison ToolS
DOI: 10.15468/dl.w5mjh3
title: Occurrence Download

description: A dataset containing 36 species occurrences available in GBIF matching the query:
{"type":"and","predicates":[{"type":"within","geometry":"POLYGON ((119.093 5.813142, 119.022377 5.807571, 118.953497 5.790996, 118.888059 5.763826, 118.827678 5.726732, 118.773842 5.680628, 118.727878 5.626652, 118.690915 5.566135, 118.663863 5.500568, 118.647385 5.431568, 118.641882 5.360834, 118.647487 5.290107, 118.664058 5.22113, 118.691184 5.155599, 118.728193 5.095128, 118.774174 5.041202, 118.827994 4.995149, 118.888328 4.9581, 118.953692 4.930966, 119.022479 4.914414, 119.093 4.908852, 119.163521 4.914414, 119.232308 4.930966, 119.297672 4.9581, 119.358006 4.995149, 119.411826 5.041202, 119.457807 5.095128, 119.494816 5.155599, 119.521942 5.22113, 119.538513 5.290107, 119.544118 5.360834, 119.538615 5.431568, 119.522137 5.500568, 119.495085 5.566135, 119.458122 5.626652, 119.412158 5.680628, 119.358322 5.726732, 119.297941 5.763826, 119.232503 5.790996, 119.163623 5.807571, 119.093 5.813142))"},{"type":"equals","key":"CLASS_KEY","value":"212","matchCase":false},{"type":"greaterThanOrEquals","key":"YEAR","value":"2015","matchCase":false},{"type":"not","predicate":{"type":"in","key":"BASIS_OF_RECORD","values":["MATERIAL_CITATION","MATERIAL_SAMPLE","PRESERVED_SPECIMEN"],"matchCase":false}},{"type":"lessThanOrEquals","key":"COORDINATE_UNCERTAINTY_IN_METERS","value":"10000","matchCase":false},{"type":"equals","key":"LICENSE","value":"CC BY 4.0","matchCase":false}]}

 The dataset includes 36 records from 1 constituent datasets; see https://api.gbif.org/v1/occurrence/download/0002196-260120142942310/datasets/export for details.
 
Data from some individual datasets included in this download may be licensed under less restrictive terms.
DOI: 10.15468/dl.46xhuu
title: Occurrence Download

description: A dataset containing 78159 species occurrences available in GBIF matching the query:
{
 "and" : [
 "TaxonKey is one of (Aedes, Anopheles, Culex)",
 "Country is Mexico",
 "HasCoordinate is true"
 ]
}

 The dataset includes 78159 records from 25 constituent datasets; see https://api.gbif.org/v1/occurrence/download/0002166-260120142942310/datasets/export for details.
 
Data from some individual datasets included in this download may be licensed under less restrictive terms.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.25248988
title: Mismatch in perceptions of the quality of supervision and research data management as an area of concern: Results from a university-wide survey of the research integrity culture at a Belgian university

description: Researchers of KU Leuven, a large Belgian university, were invited to complete a bespoke questionnaire assessing their attitudes toward research integrity and the local research culture, with specific emphasis on the supervision of junior researchers. A total of 7,353 invitations were sent via e-mail and 1,866 responses were collected (25.3% response rate), of which 1,723 responses are reported upon here. Some of the findings are relevant to the broader research community. Whereas supervisors evaluated their supervision of junior researchers almost unanimously as positive, fewer supervisees evaluated it as such. Data management emerged as an area of concern, both in terms of reviewing raw data and of data storage. More female than male professors emphasized open communication and supported their supervisees’ professional development and personal well-being. At the same time, fewer female professors felt safe to speak up than male professors. Finally, researchers who obtained their master’s degree outside Europe evaluated their supervision and KU Leuven’s research culture more positively than researchers with a master’s degree from KU Leuven. The results of the survey were fed back to the university’s board and several bodies and served as input to update the university’s research policy. Faculties and departments received a detailed report.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.24877774
title: Ten Years later: Assessments of the integrity of publications from one research group with multiple retractions

description: When a research group has multiple retracted publications and/or research misconduct by a member is evident, there is a risk that its other publications are unreliable, so a comprehensive assessment of the group’s publications is advisable. We analyzed the comprehensiveness of assessment of the integrity of 300 publications by a research group with numerous retractions and known research misconduct, for 292 of which we raised concerns to publishers and academic institutions between 3/2013 and 2/2020. By 4/2023, 91 (30%) publications had not been assessed by either publisher or academic institution. Publishers had assessed 185 (63%) publications. The 4 academic institutions had assessed 5/36 (14%), 56/216 (26%), 30/50 (60%) and 40/66 (61%) publications. Unprompted assessments, those undertaken without our notification of concerns, occurred for 24 (8%) publications, 3 (1%) by publishers and 21 (7%) by academic institutions. Among 32 journals with ≥2 affected publications, no unprompted assessments of the remaining publication(s) occurred after notification of concerns about the index publication(s). Publishers retracted 58/84 (69%) publications which institutions also assessed and decided needed no editorial action. These analyses demonstrate the failure of publishers and institutions to comprehensively and spontaneously determine the integrity of publications in a setting of known misconduct and multiple retractions.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.24877774.v1
title: Ten Years later: Assessments of the integrity of publications from one research group with multiple retractions

description: When a research group has multiple retracted publications and/or research misconduct by a member is evident, there is a risk that its other publications are unreliable, so a comprehensive assessment of the group’s publications is advisable. We analyzed the comprehensiveness of assessment of the integrity of 300 publications by a research group with numerous retractions and known research misconduct, for 292 of which we raised concerns to publishers and academic institutions between 3/2013 and 2/2020. By 4/2023, 91 (30%) publications had not been assessed by either publisher or academic institution. Publishers had assessed 185 (63%) publications. The 4 academic institutions had assessed 5/36 (14%), 56/216 (26%), 30/50 (60%) and 40/66 (61%) publications. Unprompted assessments, those undertaken without our notification of concerns, occurred for 24 (8%) publications, 3 (1%) by publishers and 21 (7%) by academic institutions. Among 32 journals with ≥2 affected publications, no unprompted assessments of the remaining publication(s) occurred after notification of concerns about the index publication(s). Publishers retracted 58/84 (69%) publications which institutions also assessed and decided needed no editorial action. These analyses demonstrate the failure of publishers and institutions to comprehensively and spontaneously determine the integrity of publications in a setting of known misconduct and multiple retractions.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.25248988.v1
title: Mismatch in perceptions of the quality of supervision and research data management as an area of concern: Results from a university-wide survey of the research integrity culture at a Belgian university

description: Researchers of KU Leuven, a large Belgian university, were invited to complete a bespoke questionnaire assessing their attitudes toward research integrity and the local research culture, with specific emphasis on the supervision of junior researchers. A total of 7,353 invitations were sent via e-mail and 1,866 responses were collected (25.3% response rate), of which 1,723 responses are reported upon here. Some of the findings are relevant to the broader research community. Whereas supervisors evaluated their supervision of junior researchers almost unanimously as positive, fewer supervisees evaluated it as such. Data management emerged as an area of concern, both in terms of reviewing raw data and of data storage. More female than male professors emphasized open communication and supported their supervisees’ professional development and personal well-being. At the same time, fewer female professors felt safe to speak up than male professors. Finally, researchers who obtained their master’s degree outside Europe evaluated their supervision and KU Leuven’s research culture more positively than researchers with a master’s degree from KU Leuven. The results of the survey were fed back to the university’s board and several bodies and served as input to update the university’s research policy. Faculties and departments received a detailed report.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.25343592
title: Mega-authorship implications: How many scientists can fit into one cell?

description: The past 20 years has seen a significant increase in articles with 500 or more authors. This increase has presented problems in terms of determining true authorship versus other types of contribution, issues with database metadata and data output, and publication length. Using items with 500+ authors deemed as mega-author titles, a total of 5,533 mega-author items were identified using <i>InCites</i>. Metadata about the items was then gathered from <i>Web of Science</i> and <i>Scopus</i>. Close examination of these items found that the vast majority of these covered physics topics, with medicine a far distant second place and only minor representation from other science fields. This mega-authorship saw significant events that appear to correspond to similar events in the Large Hadron Collider’s timeline, indicating that the projects for the collider are driving this heavy output. Some solutions are offered for the problems resulting from this phenomenon, partially driven by recommendations from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.25343592.v1
title: Mega-authorship implications: How many scientists can fit into one cell?

description: The past 20 years has seen a significant increase in articles with 500 or more authors. This increase has presented problems in terms of determining true authorship versus other types of contribution, issues with database metadata and data output, and publication length. Using items with 500+ authors deemed as mega-author titles, a total of 5,533 mega-author items were identified using <i>InCites</i>. Metadata about the items was then gathered from <i>Web of Science</i> and <i>Scopus</i>. Close examination of these items found that the vast majority of these covered physics topics, with medicine a far distant second place and only minor representation from other science fields. This mega-authorship saw significant events that appear to correspond to similar events in the Large Hadron Collider’s timeline, indicating that the projects for the collider are driving this heavy output. Some solutions are offered for the problems resulting from this phenomenon, partially driven by recommendations from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.25020491
title: More ethics in the laboratory, please! Scientists’ perspectives on ethics in the preclinical phase

description: In recent years there have been calls to improve ethics in preclinical research. Promoting ethics in preclinical research should consider the perspectives of scientists. Our study aims to explore researchers’ perspectives on ethics in the preclinical phase. Using interviews and focus groups, we collected views on ethical issues in preclinical research from experienced (<i>n</i> = 11) and early-stage researchers (ESRs) (<i>n</i> = 14) working in a gene therapy and regenerative medicine consortium. A recurring theme among ESRs was the impact of health-related preclinical research on climate change. They highlighted the importance of strengthening ethics in relations within the scientific community. Experienced researchers were focused on technicalities of methods used in preclinical research. They stressed the need for more safeguards to protect the sensitive personal data they work with. Both groups drew attention to the importance of the social context of research and its social impact. They agreed that it is important to be socially responsible – to be aware of and be sensitive to the needs and views of society. This study helps to identify key ethical challenges and, when combined with more data, can ultimately lead to informed and evidence-based improvements to existing regulations.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.25020491.v1
title: More ethics in the laboratory, please! Scientists’ perspectives on ethics in the preclinical phase

description: In recent years there have been calls to improve ethics in preclinical research. Promoting ethics in preclinical research should consider the perspectives of scientists. Our study aims to explore researchers’ perspectives on ethics in the preclinical phase. Using interviews and focus groups, we collected views on ethical issues in preclinical research from experienced (<i>n</i> = 11) and early-stage researchers (ESRs) (<i>n</i> = 14) working in a gene therapy and regenerative medicine consortium. A recurring theme among ESRs was the impact of health-related preclinical research on climate change. They highlighted the importance of strengthening ethics in relations within the scientific community. Experienced researchers were focused on technicalities of methods used in preclinical research. They stressed the need for more safeguards to protect the sensitive personal data they work with. Both groups drew attention to the importance of the social context of research and its social impact. They agreed that it is important to be socially responsible – to be aware of and be sensitive to the needs and views of society. This study helps to identify key ethical challenges and, when combined with more data, can ultimately lead to informed and evidence-based improvements to existing regulations.