[CIG-MC] CIG-MC Digest, Vol 122, Issue 3

Lijun Liu legendcit at gmail.com
Tue Mar 6 08:12:08 PST 2018 

My 2 cents: I also find this issue a bit confusing and troublesome. Not only AGU journals, others like Nature Geoscience also started to have a similar requirement call ‘Data availability’. As Scott said, there is no clear way we can really upload these model outputs, but it seems these journals are not clear on what they need either. We do try to cite every relevant publication so that readers can track down the work, but that’s probably no different from what’s discussed here. Either way, readers still don’t get the access to the raw model outputs. Maybe the most practical way is still what the tomographers are doing, as is to provide the outputs on their own server. This seems something hard to avoid for a while. 

Cheers,
Lijun

---------------------------------------------------
Lijun Liu
Associate Professor
Lincoln Excellence Scholar & Geo Thrust Professorial Scholar
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Email: ljliu at illinois.edu
Web: https://www.geology.illinois.edu/cms/One.aspx?portalId=127672&pageId=230146

> On Mar 6, 2018, at 9:43 AM, cig-mc-request at geodynamics.org wrote:
> 
> Send CIG-MC mailing list submissions to
> 	cig-mc at geodynamics.org
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://lists.geodynamics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cig-mc
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	cig-mc-request at geodynamics.org
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	cig-mc-owner at geodynamics.org
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of CIG-MC digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>   1. AGU's new data policy (Scott King)
>   2. Re: AGU's new data policy (Dan Bower)
>   3. Re: AGU's new data policy (Lorraine Hwang)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 08:17:56 -0500
> From: Scott King <sdk at vt.edu>
> To: cig-mc at geodynamics.org
> Cc: Louise Kellogg <lhkellogg at ucdavis.edu>
> Subject: [CIG-MC] AGU's new data policy
> Message-ID: <975B089E-2E3A-439E-BA70-B5182109D221 at vt.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> 
> 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/f573f10f/attachment-0001.html>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 14:59:45 +0100
> From: Dan Bower <daniel.bower at csh.unibe.ch>
> To: <cig-mc at geodynamics.org>
> Cc: lhkellogg at ucdavis.edu
> Subject: Re: [CIG-MC] AGU's new data policy
> Message-ID:
> 	<CAH_aQS5E4aOTaMrLdgZKLjsemoYQBdnBndG5BO0B=c1R=VeHYA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> 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-0001.html>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 07:28:48 -0800
> From: Lorraine Hwang <ljhwang at ucdavis.edu>
> To: Scott King <sdk at vt.edu>
> Cc: Louise Kellogg <lhkellogg at ucdavis.edu>, cig-mc at geodynamics.org
> Subject: Re: [CIG-MC] AGU's new data policy
> Message-ID: <F741DB3F-7C0D-4747-B177-BE2107E84C84 at ucdavis.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> 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.html>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Subject: Digest Footer
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CIG-MC mailing list
> CIG-MC at geodynamics.org
> http://lists.geodynamics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cig-mc
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> End of CIG-MC Digest, Vol 122, Issue 3
> **************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.geodynamics.org/pipermail/cig-mc/attachments/20180306/9de92a7d/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the CIG-MC mailing list