I like how this seems to go directly against ACS' own ethical guidelines for authors, which at the very least states 'Authors are encouraged to submit their data to a
public database, where available.' http://pubs.acs.org/userimages/ContentEditor/1218054468605/ethics.pdf
Rachael Kotarski
Data Services and Content Lead
The British Library, 96 Euston Road, London NW1 2DB
Tel: 020 7412 7167 | Email: [log in to unmask]
http://bl.uk/datasets | http://twitter.com/DataCiteUK
-----Original Message-----
From: Research Data Management discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Coles S.J.
Sent: 29 October 2015 12:40
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Journal not accepting the Data Access Statement and DOI
Dear Federica,
I am afraid this is typical behaviour of the ACS - I have had many arguments with them over the years and they are notorious for taking this kind of stance when it comes to open availability. It is certainly ironic that the first thing they pick up on acceptance is that if you are RCUK funded they quote the Open Access mandate at you and ask for $4000 - they certainly seem to heed that particular requirement.
If you don¹t want to go up against them then you can quote the DOI of the parent article - from which the Supp Info is linked. This is not the letter of the law as far as EPSRC state, however I have indications from them right now that ³the spirit of the law² is what matters - and they are aware of the fact that we have to alter a few cogs in the machine (or spanners in the case of the ACS).
If you are up for a fight (which I would join) then a half way house would be requiring ACS to mint independent DOIs for their Supp Info - that way they are seen to still be in control but the author can point explicitly at the data.
I would certainly like to ultimately be in the situation where we can mint our own DOIs and provide them in the body of the paper and thereby rid ourselves of the chains of organisations like the ACS - but more importantly make Supp Info a more useful and rich and readily (re)usable resource.
I would value the views of this community as to if in the cases where Supp Info is ³openly accessible² for a particular journal, it meets mandates if it is used as the place to deposit? At this point in time, for many, it is a pragmatic possibility (I am talking about getting my colleagues to deposit Supp Info - it is something they already do, its in the spirit of the mandate, it is little extra work and they are more likely to engage)Ð
Simon.
Simon Coles.
Associate Professor & Director, UK National Crystallography Service.
Chemistry, Faculty of Natural and Environmental Sciences, University of Southampton.
Southampton, SO17 1BJ. UK.
+44(0)2380596721
Staff Page: http://www.soton.ac.uk/chemistry/about/staff/sjc5.page
NCS: http://www.ncs.ac.uk <http://www.ncs.ac.uk/> | Southampton Diffraction Centre: http://www.soton.ac.uk/sdc
ResearcherID: http://www.researcherid.com/rid/A-1795-2009 | ORCID:
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8414-9272
On 29/10/2015 11:56, "Research Data Management discussion list on behalf of Federica Fina" <[log in to unmask] on behalf of [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Hi everyone,
>
>Here in St Andrews we are having an issue with an ACS journal with
>regards to the Data Access Statement in a manuscript.
>
>In summary, one of our researchers submitted an EPSRC funded manuscript
>with the following sentence in the Supporting Information paragraph:
>³The research data supporting this publication can be accessed at
>[DOI]²
>
>The Journal was not happy and asked our researcher to remove the
>sentence and include the ³material² in a Word document and submit it as
>a traditional SI. This however is not possible as the raw data simply
>cannot be put into a word document, given the nature of the files. They
>also wrote the following instructions:
>
>³Supporting Information Available:
>Description of the material included.
>This material is available free of charge via the Internet
>http://pubs.acs.org. (no other URL is acceptable).²
>
>The concerning bit here is ³no other URL is acceptable² and theirs does
>not really meet the definition of unique (as per EPSRC expectations).
>
>We are trying to make the process as smooth as possible for our
>researchers but these episodes do not help the cause.
>
>Maybe the sentence could be moved among the references or in the
>acknowledgements. This, however, would make the Data Access Statement
>less evident to the reader (or EPSRC themselves)Ð
>
>We contacted the journal explaining the situation but in the meantime
>we would really like to know what you think and if you have ever had
>such an experience with a publisher. If so, how did you solve it?
>
>Any advice welcome!
>
>Best wishes,
>Federica
******************************************************************************************************************
Experience the British Library online at www.bl.uk<http://www.bl.uk/>
The British Library’s latest Annual Report and Accounts : www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html<http://www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html>
Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. www.bl.uk/adoptabook<http://www.bl.uk/adoptabook>
The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled
*****************************************************************************************************************
The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent.
The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author.
*****************************************************************************************************************
Think before you print
|