Towards an even larger SYNERGY dataset

[J535D165]

SYNERGY is a free and open dataset on study selection in systematic reviews, comprising 169,288 academic works from 26 systematic reviews. Although this is already a large dataset compared with other resources, we aim to develop an even larger dataset: SYNERGY+ (SYNERGY Plus). This dataset contains even more records, datasets, a test-train split, and many more improvements. For the development of this dataset, we would appreciate your help. In the upcoming weeks, we will update this thread with information and instructions on how to contribute to this dataset.

Subscribe to this thread to keep up-to-date 🙏

[sidgoogle]

Hi, just curious if there is an update. Thanks for the valuable resource.

[EmilyWes]

Hi sidgoogle,

We are long due for an update, so thank you for the question :).

• We have started actively gathering more datasets, both by searching online and reaching out to people.
• We are standardizing and improving the current pipeline for making those datasets available. A number of changes are already in (see the development/v2 branch). When this is done we will start adding datasets, of which a number are already finalized.
• We are also busy refining and extracting information about the datasets, which we plan add over time. An example is the addition of the eligibility criteria, that can be found here. Other things are labels for abstract screening and indicators of various quality criteria of the datasets.

So keep an eye on mainly the development/v2 branch, where most of this will be added first. And feel free to come with any suggestions / possible improvements :).

[SamyAteia]

Are the studies from the CLEF TAR challenge included in the SYNERGY dataset, or are there plans to include them?
https://github.com/CLEF-TAR/tar

[EmilyWes]

Hi SamyAteia,

Thank you for the suggestion!
I have actually looked in to the CLEF dataset. Reading back my notes I understood that the creators of the dataset reproduced the search(es) rather than having the original list of identifiers or DOI's. Since we found that reproducing a search always gives different results, we did not trust the records of the dataset enough to include it in SYNERGY.
However if I understood incorrectly, please let met know so that I can check it again :).

Also nice to know: we also plan to put an overview of the reviews/data we have looked at here on the github repo, but are still deciding what would be the format for that. Reasoning why something is included/excluded in Synergy will definitely be information provided!

[Mohammadsaknini]

I have collected some data in a similar fashion to yours. Feel free to add it to your dataset Repo

[EmilyWes]

Thank you very much! I will look into it and let you know if I have any questions :)