[CIG-MC] AGU's new data policy

[Juliane Dannberg]

My experience with this is similar to what Thorsten describes. I also 
regularly have TB-sized model output, and usually include the doi of the 
version of the code I used in the paper, upload all input files/scripts 
etc. I used as supplementary material, and include a sentence that "all 
input files necessary to reproduce the model results are included in the 
supplementary material". So far, that seemed to be an acceptable 
solution, also for AGU journals.

But I agree that there doesn't seem to be a good way to archive TB-sized 
model output over long periods of time...

Best,
Juliane

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Juliane Dannberg
Postdoctoral Fellow, Colorado State University
http://www.math.colostate.edu/~dannberg/ 
<http://www.math.colostate.edu/%7Edannberg/>



Am 3/6/2018 um 9:39 AM schrieb Thorsten Becker:
> The way I have interpreted AGU's guidelines for geodynamic studies as 
> AGU editor is to not ask for archiving of model output, but to ask for 
> general access to all material that would be needed to recreate that 
> output, or some simpler version of it that is proof of concept. I.e. 
> input data, input files, and a DOI to version of code, for example, if 
> a community code is used.
>
> The general idea is, of course, to make things reproducible, and AGU 
> and Wiley are among those who realize that this can cause problems, 
> and are working on solutions with the community.
>
> One particular issue is that I have not asked for verification that 
> results are actually reproducible, and taken authors assurances that 
> codes will be shared at face value (besides when the publications were 
> of technical nature, and we ask reviewers to actually try to download 
> and run the software, for example (which usually never works)). I 
> think that part might change, in that publishers may ask for a code 
> access link and somehow archive this.
>
> I can also see some solutions akin to asking for a Docker set up, 
> archived somewhere, that will allow anyone to rerun the models. There 
> are interesting challenges involved, but in the end, I think moving to 
> more openness and reproducibility is a good thing, and the success of 
> CIG shows how some issues that were raised before we moved into this 
> model resolved themselves. Things are perfect, but we're making progress.
>
> My personal experience with publishing numerical stuff in highly 
> visible journals is that, within a week, there are people actually 
> asking to get all the code and all the input files to rerun our 
> models, and we've always shared all of our stuff, of course. I realize 
> that this is a significant workload (particularly for my grad students 
> who actually put this stuff together...) and somehow AGU and 
> publishers need to do more to support people with large data volumes, 
> seismological inversions being another example.
>
>
> Thorsten Becker - UTIG & DGS, JSG, UT Austin 
> <http://www-udc.ig.utexas.edu/external/becker/>
>
> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 7:17 AM, Scott King <sdk at vt.edu 
> <mailto: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
>
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     CIG-MC mailing list
>     CIG-MC at geodynamics.org <mailto:CIG-MC at geodynamics.org>
>     http://lists.geodynamics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cig-mc
>     <http://lists.geodynamics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cig-mc>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CIG-MC mailing list
> CIG-MC at geodynamics.org
> http://lists.geodynamics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cig-mc

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.geodynamics.org/pipermail/cig-mc/attachments/20180306/476a1a89/attachment.html>