This dataset includes information on quality control and data management of researchers and data curators from a social science organization. Four data curators and 24 researchers provided responses for the study. Data collection techniques, data processing strategies, data storage and preservation, metadata standards, data sharing procedures, and the perceived significance of quality control and data quality assurance are the main areas of focus. The dataset attempts to provide insight on the RDM procedures that are being used by a social science organization as well as the difficulties that researchers and data curators encounter in upholding high standards of data quality. The goal of the study is to encourage more investigations aimed at enhancing scientific community data management practices and guidelines.

Dimensions of data quality.

Data Quality Management Service Market Outlook

The global data quality management service market size was valued at approximately USD 1.8 billion in 2023 and is projected to reach USD 5.9 billion by 2032, growing at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 14.1% during the forecast period. The primary growth factor driving this market is the increasing volume of data being generated across various industries, necessitating robust data quality management solutions to maintain data accuracy, reliability, and relevance.

One of the key growth drivers for the data quality management service market is the exponential increase in data generation due to the proliferation of digital technologies such as IoT, big data analytics, and AI. Organizations are increasingly recognizing the importance of maintaining high data quality to derive actionable insights and make informed business decisions. Poor data quality can lead to significant financial losses, inefficiencies, and missed opportunities, thereby driving the demand for comprehensive data quality management services.

Another significant growth factor is the rising regulatory and compliance requirements across various industry verticals such as BFSI, healthcare, and government. Regulations like the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) necessitate organizations to maintain accurate and high-quality data. Non-compliance with these regulations can result in severe penalties and damage to the organization’s reputation, thus propelling the adoption of data quality management solutions.

Additionally, the increasing adoption of cloud-based solutions is further fueling the growth of the data quality management service market. Cloud-based data quality management solutions offer scalability, flexibility, and cost-effectiveness, making them an attractive option for organizations of all sizes. The availability of advanced data quality management tools that integrate seamlessly with existing IT infrastructure and cloud platforms is encouraging enterprises to invest in these services to enhance their data management capabilities.

From a regional perspective, North America is expected to hold the largest share of the data quality management service market, driven by the early adoption of advanced technologies and the presence of key market players. However, the Asia Pacific region is anticipated to witness the highest growth rate during the forecast period, owing to the rapid digital transformation, increasing investments in IT infrastructure, and growing awareness about the importance of data quality management in enhancing business operations and decision-making processes.

Component Analysis

The data quality management service market is segmented by component into software and services. The software segment encompasses various data quality tools and platforms that help organizations assess, improve, and maintain the quality of their data. These tools include data profiling, data cleansing, data enrichment, and data monitoring solutions. The increasing complexity of data environments and the need for real-time data quality monitoring are driving the demand for sophisticated data quality software solutions.

Services, on the other hand, include consulting, implementation, and support services provided by data quality management service vendors. Consulting services assist organizations in identifying data quality issues, developing data governance frameworks, and implementing best practices for data quality management. Implementation services involve the deployment and integration of data quality tools with existing IT systems, while support services provide ongoing maintenance and troubleshooting assistance. The growing need for expert guidance and support in managing data quality is contributing to the growth of the services segment.

The software segment is expected to dominate the market due to the continuous advancements in data quality management tools and the increasing adoption of AI and machine learning technologies for automated data quality processes. Organizations are increasingly investing in advanced data quality software to streamline their data management operations, reduce manual intervention, and ensure data accuracy and consistency across various data sources.

Moreover, the services segment is anticipated to witness significant growth during the forecast period, driven by the increasing demand for professional services that can help organizations address complex dat

This data table provides the detailed data quality assessment scores for the Curtailment dataset. The quality assessment was carried out on the 31st of March. At SPEN, we are dedicated to sharing high-quality data with our stakeholders and being transparent about its' quality. This is why we openly share the results of our data quality assessments. We collaborate closely with Data Owners to address any identified issues and enhance our overall data quality. To demonstrate our progress we conduct, at a minimum, bi-annual assessments of our data quality - for datasets that are refreshed more frequently than this, please note that the quality assessment may be based on an earlier version of the dataset. To learn more about our approach to how we assess data quality, visit Data Quality - SP Energy Networks. We welcome feedback and questions from our stakeholders regarding this process. Our Open Data Team is available to answer any enquiries or receive feedback on the assessments. You can contact them via our Open Data mailbox at opendata@spenergynetworks.co.uk.The first phase of our comprehensive data quality assessment measures the quality of our datasets across three dimensions. Please refer to the data table schema for the definitions of these dimensions. We are now in the process of expanding our quality assessments to include additional dimensions to provide a more comprehensive evaluation and will update the data tables with the results when available.

Data Quality Tools Market size was valued at USD 2.71 Billion in 2024 and is projected to reach USD 4.15 Billion by 2031, growing at a CAGR of 5.46% from 2024 to 2031.

Global Data Quality Tools Market Drivers

Growing Data Volume and Complexity: Sturdy data quality technologies are necessary to guarantee accurate, consistent, and trustworthy information because of the exponential increase in the volume and complexity of data supplied by companies. Growing Knowledge of Data Governance: Businesses are realizing how critical it is to uphold strict standards for data integrity and data governance. Tools for improving data quality are essential for advancing data governance programs. Needs for Regulatory Compliance: Adoption of data quality technologies is prompted by strict regulatory requirements, like GDPR, HIPAA, and other data protection rules, which aim to ensure compliance and reduce the risk of negative legal and financial outcomes. Growing Emphasis on Analytics and Business Intelligence (BI): The requirement for accurate and trustworthy data is highlighted by the increasing reliance on corporate intelligence and analytics for well-informed decision-making. Tools for improving data quality contribute to increased data accuracy for analytics and reporting. Initiatives for Data Integration and Migration: Companies engaged in data integration or migration initiatives understand how critical it is to preserve data quality throughout these procedures. The use of data quality technologies is essential for guaranteeing seamless transitions and avoiding inconsistent data. Real-time data quality management is in demand: Organizations looking to make prompt decisions based on precise and current information are driving an increased need for real-time data quality management systems. The emergence of cloud computing and big data: Strong data quality tools are required to manage many data sources, formats, and environments while upholding high data quality standards as big data and cloud computing solutions become more widely used. Pay attention to customer satisfaction and experience: Businesses are aware of how data quality affects customer happiness and experience. Establishing and maintaining consistent and accurate customer data is essential to fostering trust and providing individualized services. Preventing Fraud and Data-Related Errors: By detecting and fixing mistakes in real time, data quality technologies assist firms in preventing errors, discrepancies, and fraudulent activities while lowering the risk of monetary losses and reputational harm. Linking Master Data Management (MDM) Programs: Integrating with MDM solutions improves master data management overall and guarantees high-quality, accurate, and consistent maintenance of vital corporate information. Offerings for Data Quality as a Service (DQaaS): Data quality tools are now more widely available and scalable for companies of all sizes thanks to the development of Data Quality as a Service (DQaaS), which offers cloud-based solutions to firms.

This dataset contains data collected during a study "Understanding the development of public data ecosystems: from a conceptual model to a six-generation model of the evolution of public data ecosystems" conducted by Martin Lnenicka (University of Hradec Králové, Czech Republic), Anastasija Nikiforova (University of Tartu, Estonia), Mariusz Luterek (University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland), Petar Milic (University of Pristina - Kosovska Mitrovica, Serbia), Daniel Rudmark (Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute, Sweden), Sebastian Neumaier (St. Pölten University of Applied Sciences, Austria), Karlo Kević (University of Zagreb, Croatia), Anneke Zuiderwijk (Delft University of Technology, Delft, the Netherlands), Manuel Pedro Rodríguez Bolívar (University of Granada, Granada, Spain).

As there is a lack of understanding of the elements that constitute different types of value-adding public data ecosystems and how these elements form and shape the development of these ecosystems over time, which can lead to misguided efforts to develop future public data ecosystems, the aim of the study is: (1) to explore how public data ecosystems have developed over time and (2) to identify the value-adding elements and formative characteristics of public data ecosystems. Using an exploratory retrospective analysis and a deductive approach, we systematically review 148 studies published between 1994 and 2023. Based on the results, this study presents a typology of public data ecosystems and develops a conceptual model of elements and formative characteristics that contribute most to value-adding public data ecosystems, and develops a conceptual model of the evolutionary generation of public data ecosystems represented by six generations called Evolutionary Model of Public Data Ecosystems (EMPDE). Finally, three avenues for a future research agenda are proposed.

This dataset is being made public both to act as supplementary data for "Understanding the development of public data ecosystems: from a conceptual model to a six-generation model of the evolution of public data ecosystems ", Telematics and Informatics*, and its Systematic Literature Review component that informs the study.

Description of the data in this data set

PublicDataEcosystem_SLR provides the structure of the protocol

Spreadsheet#1 provides the list of results after the search over three indexing databases and filtering out irrelevant studies

Spreadsheets #2 provides the protocol structure.

Spreadsheets #3 provides the filled protocol for relevant studies.

The information on each selected study was collected in four categories:(1) descriptive information,(2) approach- and research design- related information,(3) quality-related information,(4) HVD determination-related information

Descriptive Information

Article number

A study number, corresponding to the study number assigned in an Excel worksheet

Complete reference

The complete source information to refer to the study (in APA style), including the author(s) of the study, the year in which it was published, the study's title and other source information.

Year of publication

The year in which the study was published.

Journal article / conference paper / book chapter

The type of the paper, i.e., journal article, conference paper, or book chapter.

Journal / conference / book

Journal article, conference, where the paper is published.

DOI / Website

A link to the website where the study can be found.

Number of words

A number of words of the study.

Number of citations in Scopus and WoS

The number of citations of the paper in Scopus and WoS digital libraries.

Availability in Open Access

Availability of a study in the Open Access or Free / Full Access.

Keywords

Keywords of the paper as indicated by the authors (in the paper).

Relevance for our study (high / medium / low)

What is the relevance level of the paper for our study

Approach- and research design-related information

Approach- and research design-related information

Objective / Aim / Goal / Purpose & Research Questions

The research objective and established RQs.

Research method (including unit of analysis)

The methods used to collect data in the study, including the unit of analysis that refers to the country, organisation, or other specific unit that has been analysed such as the number of use-cases or policy documents, number and scope of the SLR etc.

Study’s contributions

The study’s contribution as defined by the authors

Qualitative / quantitative / mixed method

Whether the study uses a qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods approach?

Availability of the underlying research data

Whether the paper has a reference to the public availability of the underlying research data e.g., transcriptions of interviews, collected data etc., or explains why these data are not openly shared?

Period under investigation

Period (or moment) in which the study was conducted (e.g., January 2021-March 2022)

Use of theory / theoretical concepts / approaches? If yes, specify them

Does the study mention any theory / theoretical concepts / approaches? If yes, what theory / concepts / approaches? If any theory is mentioned, how is theory used in the study? (e.g., mentioned to explain a certain phenomenon, used as a framework for analysis, tested theory, theory mentioned in the future research section).

Quality-related information

Quality concerns

Whether there are any quality concerns (e.g., limited information about the research methods used)?

Public Data Ecosystem-related information

Public data ecosystem definition

How is the public data ecosystem defined in the paper and any other equivalent term, mostly infrastructure. If an alternative term is used, how is the public data ecosystem called in the paper?

Public data ecosystem evolution / development

Does the paper define the evolution of the public data ecosystem? If yes, how is it defined and what factors affect it?

What constitutes a public data ecosystem?

What constitutes a public data ecosystem (components & relationships) - their "FORM / OUTPUT" presented in the paper (general description with more detailed answers to further additional questions).

Components and relationships

What components does the public data ecosystem consist of and what are the relationships between these components? Alternative names for components - element, construct, concept, item, helix, dimension etc. (detailed description).

Stakeholders

What stakeholders (e.g., governments, citizens, businesses, Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) etc.) does the public data ecosystem involve?

Actors and their roles

What actors does the public data ecosystem involve? What are their roles?

Data (data types, data dynamism, data categories etc.)

What data do the public data ecosystem cover (is intended / designed for)? Refer to all data-related aspects, including but not limited to data types, data dynamism (static data, dynamic, real-time data, stream), prevailing data categories / domains / topics etc.

Processes / activities / dimensions, data lifecycle phases

What processes, activities, dimensions and data lifecycle phases (e.g., locate, acquire, download, reuse, transform, etc.) does the public data ecosystem involve or refer to?

Level (if relevant)

What is the level of the public data ecosystem covered in the paper? (e.g., city, municipal, regional, national (=country), supranational, international).

Other elements or relationships (if any)

What other elements or relationships does the public data ecosystem consist of?

Additional comments

Additional comments (e.g., what other topics affected the public data ecosystems and their elements, what is expected to affect the public data ecosystems in the future, what were important topics by which the period was characterised etc.).

New papers

Does the study refer to any other potentially relevant papers?

Additional references to potentially relevant papers that were found in the analysed paper (snowballing).

Format of the file.xls, .csv (for the first spreadsheet only), .docx

Licenses or restrictionsCC-BY

For more info, see README.txt

This data table provides the detailed data quality assessment scores for the Long Term Development Statement dataset. The quality assessment was carried out on 31st March. At SPEN, we are dedicated to sharing high-quality data with our stakeholders and being transparent about its' quality. This is why we openly share the results of our data quality assessments. We collaborate closely with Data Owners to address any identified issues and enhance our overall data quality; to demonstrate our progress we conduct annual assessments of our data quality in line with the dataset refresh rate. To learn more about our approach to how we assess data quality, visit Data Quality - SP Energy Networks. We welcome feedback and questions from our stakeholders regarding this process. Our Open Data Team is available to answer any enquiries or receive feedback on the assessments. You can contact them via our Open Data mailbox at opendata@spenergynetworks.co.uk.The first phase of our comprehensive data quality assessment measures the quality of our datasets across three dimensions. Please refer to the data table schema for the definitions of these dimensions. We are now in the process of expanding our quality assessments to include additional dimensions to provide a more comprehensive evaluation and will update the data tables with the results when available.

This data table provides the detailed data quality assessment scores for the Technical Limits dataset. The quality assessment was carried out on the 31st of March. At SPEN, we are dedicated to sharing high-quality data with our stakeholders and being transparent about its' quality. This is why we openly share the results of our data quality assessments. We collaborate closely with Data Owners to address any identified issues and enhance our overall data quality. To demonstrate our progress we conduct, at a minimum, bi-annual assessments of our data quality - for datasets that are refreshed more frequently than this, please note that the quality assessment may be based on an earlier version of the dataset. To learn more about our approach to how we assess data quality, visit Data Quality - SP Energy Networks. We welcome feedback and questions from our stakeholders regarding this process. Our Open Data Team is available to answer any enquiries or receive feedback on the assessments. You can contact them via our Open Data mailbox at opendata@spenergynetworks.co.uk.The first phase of our comprehensive data quality assessment measures the quality of our datasets across three dimensions. Please refer to the data table schema for the definitions of these dimensions. We are now in the process of expanding our quality assessments to include additional dimensions to provide a more comprehensive evaluation and will update the data tables with the results when available.

This repository contains quality data produced by KGHeartBeat and used in the research article Are Quality Dimensions correlated? An empirical Investigation.

The quality data used refers to the following assessment date:

• 2024-01-07
• 2024-04-07
• 2024-08-04
• 2024-04-06
• 2025-04-06

This data table provides the detailed data quality assessment scores for the Flexibility Market Prospectus dataset. The quality assessment was carried out on the 31st March. At SPEN, we are dedicated to sharing high-quality data with our stakeholders and being transparent about its' quality. This is why we openly share the results of our data quality assessments. We collaborate closely with Data Owners to address any identified issues and enhance our overall data quality. To demonstrate our progress we conduct at a minimum, bi-annual assessments of our data quality - for datasets that are refreshed more frequently than this, please note that the quality assessment may be based on an earlier version of the dataset. To learn more about our approach to how we assess data quality, visit Data Quality - SP Energy NetworksWe welcome feedback and questions from our stakeholders regarding this process. Our Open Data Team is available to answer any enquiries or receive feedback on the assessments. You can contact them via our Open Data mailbox at opendata@spenergynetworks.co.uk.The first phase of our comprehensive data quality assessment measures the quality of our datasets across three dimensions. Please refer to the data table schema for the definitions of these dimensions. We are now in the process of expanding our quality assessments to include additional dimensions to provide a more comprehensive evaluation and will update the data tables with the results when available.DisclaimerThe data quality assessment may not represent the quality of the current dataset that is published on the Open Data Portal. Please check the date of the latest quality assessment and compare to the 'Modified' date of the corresponding dataset. The data quality assessments will be updated on either a quarterly or annual basis, dependent on the update frequency of the dataset. This information can be found in the dataset metadata, within the Information tab. If you require a more up to date quality assessment, please contact the Open Data Team at opendata@spenergynetworks.co.uk and a member of the team will be in contact.

The Gridded Population of the World, Version 4 (GPWv4): Data Quality Indicators consist of three data layers created to provide additional information about the quality of input population data and to provide context for the population count and density grids. The water mask distinguishes between pixels that are completely water and/or ice (Total Water Pixels) and pixels that also contain land (Partial Water Pixels). The data context grid categorizes pixels with estimated zero population based on information provided in the census documents, such as areas that are part of a national park, areas that have no households, etc. The Mean Administrative Unit Area grid measures the mean unit size in square kilometers. The mean unit size grid provides a quantitative surface that indicates the size of the input unit(s) from which population count and density grids are derived.

This archive provides additional data for the article "Understanding Test Convention Consistency

as a Dimension of Test Quality" by Martin P. Robillard, Mathieu Nassif, and Muhammad Sohail,

published in ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology.

This data table provides the detailed data quality assessment scores for the Historic Faults dataset. The quality assessment was carried out on the 31st March. At SPEN, we are dedicated to sharing high-quality data with our stakeholders and being transparent about its' quality. This is why we openly share the results of our data quality assessments. We collaborate closely with Data Owners to address any identified issues and enhance our overall data quality. To demonstrate our progress we conduct, at a minimum, bi-annual assessments of our data quality - for datasets that are refreshed more frequently than this, please note that the quality assessment may be based on an earlier version of the dataset. To learn more about our approach to how we assess data quality, visit Data Quality - SP Energy Networks. We welcome feedback and questions from our stakeholders regarding this process. Our Open Data Team is available to answer any enquiries or receive feedback on the assessments. You can contact them via our Open Data mailbox at opendata@spenergynetworks.co.uk.The first phase of our comprehensive data quality assessment measures the quality of our datasets across three dimensions. Please refer to the data table schema for the definitions of these dimensions. We are now in the process of expanding our quality assessments to include additional dimensions to provide a more comprehensive evaluation and will update the data tables with the results when available.

This data table provides the detailed data quality assessment scores for the Embedded Capacity Register dataset. The quality assessment was carried out on 30th April. Please note, this assessment only covers 1MW and above data. At SPEN, we are dedicated to sharing high-quality data with our stakeholders and being transparent about its' quality. This is why we openly share the results of our data quality assessments. We collaborate closely with Data Owners to address any identified issues and enhance our overall data quality. To demonstrate our progress we conduct, at minimum, bi-annual assessments of our data quality - for datasets that are refreshed more frequently than this, please not that the quality assessment may be based on an earlier version of the dataset. To learn more about our approach to how we assess data quality, visit Data Quality - SP Energy Networks. We welcome feedback and questions from our stakeholders regarding this process. Our Open Data Team is available to answer any enquiries or receive feedback on the assessments. You can contact them via our Open Data mailbox at opendata@spenergynetworks.co.uk.The first phase of our comprehensive data quality assessment measures the quality of our datasets across three dimensions. Please refer to the data table schema for the definitions of these dimensions. We are now in the process of expanding our quality assessments to include additional dimensions to provide a more comprehensive evaluation and will update the data tables with the results when available.

Small and medium enterprises, especially in the food and clothing sectors in Indonesia, still pay little attention to the role of quality in their performance and its possible impacts on their competitiveness. There is a simple model of quality culture that has 6 dimensions: material handling, machinery and equipments handling, plant production environment, human resources, problem solving, and quality obsession. This model could accomodate SMEs with a basic foundation for selfassessment in terms of reaching certain quality, thus, they can compete not only locally but also at global markets.

Numerous studies make extensive use of healthcare data, including human materials and clinical information, and acknowledge its significance. However, limitations in data collection methods can impact the quality of healthcare data obtained from multiple institutions. In order to secure high-quality data related to human materials, research focused on data quality is necessary. This study validated the quality of data collected in 2020 from 16 institutions constituting the Korea Biobank Network using 104 validation rules. The validation rules were developed based on the DQ4HEALTH model and were divided into four dimensions: completeness, validity, accuracy, and uniqueness. Korea Biobank Network collects and manages human materials and clinical information from multiple biobanks, and is in the process of developing a common data model for data integration. The results of the data quality verification revealed an error rate of 0.74%. Furthermore, an analysis of the data from each institution was performed to examine the relationship between the institution’s characteristics and error count. The results from a chi-square test indicated that there was an independent correlation between each institution and its error count. To confirm this correlation between error counts and the characteristics of each institution, a correlation analysis was conducted. The results, shown in a graph, revealed the relationship between factors that had high correlation coefficients and the error count. The findings suggest that the data quality was impacted by biases in the evaluation system, including the institution’s IT environment, infrastructure, and the number of collected samples. These results highlight the need to consider the scalability of research quality when evaluating clinical epidemiological information linked to human materials in future validation studies of data quality.

It represents the data quality dimensions concerning different types of data.

The Australian Antarctic Data Centre's Casey Station GIS data were originally mapped from Aerial photography (January 4 1994). Refer to the metadata record 'Casey Station GIS Dataset'. Since then various features have been added to these data as structures have been removed, moved or established. Some of these features have been surveyed. These surveys have metadata records from which the report describing the survey can be downloaded. However, the locations of other features have been obtained from a variety of sources. The data are included in the data available for download from the provided URLs. The data conforms to the SCAR Feature Catalogue which includes data quality information. See the provided URL. Data described by this metadata record has Dataset_id = 17. Data quality information for each feature is included within the dataset.

The Gridded Population of the World, Version 4 (GPWv4): Data Quality Indicators, Revision 10 consists of three data layers created to provide context for the population count and density rasters, and explicit information on the spatial precision of the input boundary data. The Data Context raster explains pixels with a "0" population estimate in the population count and density rasters based on information included in the census documents, such as areas that are part of a national park, areas that have no households, etc. The Water Mask raster distinguishes between pixels that are completely water and/or ice (Total Water Pixels) and pixels that also contain land (Partial Water Pixels). The Mean Administrative Unit Area raster represents the mean input unit size in square kilometers and provides a quantitative surface that indicates the size of the input unit(s) from which population count and density rasters are created. The data files were produced as global rasters at 30 arc-second (~1 km at the equator) resolution. To enable faster global processing, and in support of research communities, the 30 arc-second data were aggregated to 2.5 arc-minute, 15 arc-minute, 30 arc-minute and 1 degree resolutions.

Demographics and attitudes/opinions of QDM. Visit https://dataone.org/datasets/sha256%3A7f31869f30c8448ea123dd2ad9ac6154ed6fddc66905e434af03d103ee9cbe47 for complete metadata about this dataset.