Dear all something I am not completely aware of: can the ESRF users decide on having their data destroyed from the ESRF servers? One way to go I would think could be proper would be to announce getting open access for all the data on the servers or wherever after 3 years (or few months for what it is), or ask the users to get their data back home and destroy whatever has been transferred. The *fault* goes then to the users, who are legally bound to publish within x years, with the synchrotron facility that would not be in a legally bad situation.
I am certainly missing important points here, and probably oversimplify the whole problem. Cheers, leo > On 08 Apr 2016, at 12:25, Mark J van Raaij <mjvanra...@cnb.csic.es> wrote: > > Hola Xavi, > > I agree three years is short for many projects. However, from the news item, > the three-year embargo period appears to be renewable on request: "The > experimental team will have sole access to the data during a three-year > embargo period, renewable if necessary.” > Imo, what they should do is include this renewal clause explicitly in the > statement you sign/agree with. > If this renewal is indeed possible, and renewal requests are dealt with > properly, I don’t see a problem with the new policy. > > The journal issue is more complicated I think, as was discussed on ccp4bb not > long ago (topic “questionable structures"), with people in favour and against > policies like that of NSMB - I, for one, am in favour of it, I see no reason > to treat crystallographic data differently than other data, all data can be > faked, and all data can be scooped… > Your alternative policy also sounds ok, although authors could then > reasonable also ask for a similar policy on other kind of data. > > Saludos, > > Mark > > Mark J van Raaij > Dpto de Estructura de Macromoleculas > Centro Nacional de Biotecnologia - CSIC > c/Darwin 3 > E-28049 Madrid, Spain > tel. (+34) 91 585 4616 > http://wwwuser.cnb.csic.es/~mjvanraaij > > > > > > >> On 8 Apr 2016, at 11:47, F.Xavier Gomis-Rüth <f...@ibmb.csic.es> wrote: >> >> Dear CCP4ers, >> I received the message below from the ESRf User Office some weeks ago and >> was wondering if others within the community had, too, and would >> put this up for discussion within the BB. But as this is apparently not the >> case, I will come to the fore ;-) . >> I must say this is a unilateral decision by ESRF, I was completely unaware >> that this was under discussion. While I am truly not against >> transparency, in particular in the case of publicly funded research, in this >> case I consider that things have simply gone too far. A really challenging >> project in MX currently ALWAYS takes more than 3 years to be published after >> the very first dataset was collected, so this regulation poses an >> additional, completely artificial and gratuitous pressure on researchers to >> finish everything within a determined and clearly too short time span. >> Another font of unnecessary pressure is provided by some journals, such as >> NSMB, which now impose that not only the coordinates be send for review of a >> manuscript but rather the cif files with the reflections, while, obviously, >> reviewers keep their anonymity. Given the particular characteristics of our >> field, where >> who publishes first irreversibly relegates competitors to the absolute >> irrelevance, such policies rather favor fraud but on the other side, on that >> of >> potentially desperate competitors, whose very existence depends on relevant >> publications and who easily could take advantage of this information. >> While sound cases of fraud, historical and recent, clearly impose the >> necessity of stringent control, this must happen in a rational way and >> following >> consensus within the community, which has not happened in the aforementioned >> cases. In the case of ESRF, this could be easily accomplished as in the PDB, >> where data are released upon publication. In the case of journals, by >> performing an exhaustive verification of structures AFTER the manuscript has >> been >> pre-accepted, as a final condition for definitive acceptance. >> I would be very interested in the opinion of the BB. >> Best, >> Xavier >> >> >> >> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >> Subject: Implementation of the ESRF Data Policy >> Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 17:04:43 +0100 (CET) >> From: user...@esrf.fr >> To: xgr...@ibmb.csic.es >> >> Dear ESRF User, >> >> The new ESRF data policy stipulates that all raw data and the associated >> metadata from peer reviewed access experiments at the ESRF will be open >> access after an initial embargo period of 3 years, during which access is >> restricted to the experimental team, represented by the Main Proposers. >> Proprietary research experiments are excluded. >> >> Acceptance of this policy is a condition for the request of ESRF beamtime. >> >> For more details and information, please read the news item at here. >> The ESRF data policy document and the status of implementation on the >> different ESRF beamlines can be consulted here. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> ESRF - User Office >> Tel: + 33 (0)4 76 88 23 58 / 25 52 /28 80 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> - Leonard Chavas - Synchrotron SOLEIL Proxima-I L'Orme des Merisiers Saint-Aubin - BP 48 91192 Gif-sur-Yvette Cedex France - Phone: +33 169 359 746 Mobile: +33 644 321 614 E-mail: leonard.cha...@synchrotron-soleil.fr -
