Research Data
Providers using this tag (171)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Strong 1 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 37 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 84 Limited public surface area
Emerging 45 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 4 Almost no public developer surface
APIs with this tag (242)
Ranked by the provider's API Evangelist rating — the Kin Score is scored per provider, not per API, so every API of a provider shares its band. How the rating works →
Strong 3 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 41 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 120 Limited public surface area
Emerging 78 Early or largely undocumented
Companies reaching this through an API (41)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “Research Data” but do not classify their business under it. Listed unranked and kept out of the count above, because one tagged operation is not a statement about what a company does.
Score breakdown
Where this tag sits
171 providers carry this tag directly, and 192 counting the 2 narrower tags below — 21 more to reach.
Related tags
Where this tag comes from
Markets provisional
Kin Score markets whose measured providers carry this tag. Share is the fraction of the market's measured providers that carry it — it describes the market, not this tag.
| Market | Share of the market's providers |
|---|---|
| Higher Education and Research | 57% |
| IIIF and Cultural Heritage (GLAM image interoperability, Linked Art) | 43% |
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 170 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged Research Data, scored on the Kin Score. Every figure below is computed from the catalog — nothing here is written.
| Facet | This cohort | Catalog | Difference | Scored |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Contract Quality | 37.9 | 18.6 | +19.3 | 170 |
| Discoverability | 65.5 | 59.1 | +6.4 | 170 |
| Developer Ergonomics | 30.4 | 24.5 | +5.9 | 170 |
| Contract Governance | 15.3 | 9.7 | +5.6 | 170 |
| Operational Transparency | 15.1 | 13.2 | +1.9 | 170 |
| Access Clarity | 25.1 | 30 | -4.9 | 170 |
A facet is averaged over the members that carry it, not over the whole cohort — the “Scored” column is that count. Averaging an absent facet as zero would score our own coverage gaps as the providers’ posture.
| Artifact | This cohort | Catalog | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| MCP server (any) | 2% | 18% | -16 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 2% | 16% | -14 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 31% | 13% | +18 |
| Security | 100% | 99% | +1 |
| Arazzo workflows | 0% | 1% | -1 |
| Governance rules | 72% | 36% | +36 |
mcp_pct counts any mcp/ artifact including ones API Evangelist derived from the provider OpenAPI; mcp_first_party_pct counts only servers the provider publishes. Prefer the latter.
- 1 University of Waterloo 64
- 2 Compoid 49.9
- 3 Dimensions 49.5
- 4 Uppsala University 49.4
- 5 University of Helsinki 48.6
- 6 Delft University of Technology 47.8
- 7 Wageningen University & Research 47.2
- 8 Dataville 47
- 9 Pennsylvania State University 46.5
- 10 CSIRO 46.2
- 1 Dataville 42.2
- 2 Dimensions 41.9
- 3 Rice University 41.7
- 4 Columbia University 41
- 5 Newcastle University 37.4
- 6 University of Melbourne 36.7
- 7 Compoid 34.9
- 8 Semantic Scholar 33.9
- 9 Hong Kong University of Science and Technology 33.6
- 10 Massey University 32.8
Coverage caveat. 118 of 170 scored members had under half their catalog-attributable points satisfied at all (catalog_earned / catalog_max < 0.5). They are INCLUDED in the mean above. A large share here means the cohort mean is partly a measurement of how far our enrichment reached, not only of how these providers publish.Generated from the catalog build of 14 November 2026, across 41591 providers, using the same computation served by the APIs.io cohort API. Briefs are published for rosters of 5 or more scored providers; below that a distribution is not meaningful.
Work with this as data
Every tag here is available over the APIs.io API and to AI agents over MCP.