[CIG-MC] AGU's new data policy

[Dan Bower]

Hi Scott,

The SNSF (Switzerland) is also working on this:

http://www.snf.ch/en/theSNSF/research-policies/open_research_data/Pages/data-management-plan-dmp-guidelines-for-researchers.aspx

At the moment they only provide loose guidelines and try to let the
researchers themselves decide on the best course of action.  In fact, the
SNSF don't even state what "data" actually is (since it varies between
fields and disciplines, and particularly between the humanities and
sciences).  Anyway, hope the link above is of some use to you (and others),
perhaps to compare with what AGU (and other science organisations) are
doing.

Cheers,

Dan


On 6 March 2018 at 14:17, <sdk at vt.edu> wrote:

>
> AGU journals have a new data policy requiring that all the data from the
> work must be in a publicly accessible repository.  In general I think this
> is a good thing.   They provide several possible solutions.   From the
> editor letter…
>
> "*AGU requires that data needed to understand and build upon the
> published research be available in public repositories following **best
> practices
> <http://publications.agu.org/author-resource-center/publication-policies/data-policy/data-policy-faq/>.
> This includes an explicit statement in the Acknowledgments section on where
> users can access or find the data for this paper. Citations to archived
> data should be included in your reference list and all references,
> including those cited in the supplement, should be included in the main
> reference list. All listed references must be available to the general
> reader by the time of acceptance.*”
>
> They list several possible repositories, none of which seem appropriate
> for 2.9 TB of CicomS results. Set aside the philosophical issue that model
> results are not “data” (they don’t accept that).   I have the output used
> in the published figures down to a reasonable size but. I’m curious what
> others are doing.  Has anyone else run into this yet?  (If not you will.)
>  I’m curious if there is a community consensus regarding a repository where
> all geodynamics results would/could end up, as opposed to ending up with
> them scattered across 3-4 (or more) potential repositories.  Maybe that’s
> not something to worry about, but since this is new and to me at least I’ve
> had no time to think it through, I’m curious what others are doing.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Scott
>
>
>
>


-- 
Dan J. Bower, PhD
Oberassistent
SNSF Ambizione Fellow and CSH Fellow
Center for Space and Habitability (CSH)
University of Bern
Gesellschaftsstrasse 6
3012 Bern, Switzerland
+41 31 631 3703
daniel.bower at csh.unibe.ch
https://danjbower.wordpress.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.geodynamics.org/pipermail/cig-mc/attachments/20180306/f52ff553/attachment.html>