[CIG-MC] AGU's new data policy

[Lorraine Hwang]

Currently CIG maintains a zenodo community:
	https://zenodo.org/communities/geodynamics/?page=1&size=20 <https://zenodo.org/communities/geodynamics/?page=1&size=20>

The current description indicates that:
	
This community is intended for use for codes in the CIG repository and their associated research products

as it was initiated to grab DOIs for code.  Should the scope be broaden?  What are the pro’s and cons’s? This is an issue across our communities.

AGU guidance is currently what is considered Best Practices though I agree that spreading it across repo’s does not encourage discovery by other means than direct DOI link.  

Best,
-Lorraine

*****************************
Lorraine Hwang, Ph.D.
Associate Director, CIG
530.752.3656



> On Mar 6, 2018, at 5:17 AM, Scott King <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
> 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.geodynamics.org/pipermail/cig-mc/attachments/20180306/ebace37c/attachment-0001.html>