 |
 |
To me, it sounds as though the researcher has submitted a reference to the dataset as “Supporting Information” rather than simply citing the dataset within the paper. It is therefore not, in itself, SI for the journal to publish. Also, the ACS FAQ defines SI as "material that may be essential to the specialized reader but not require elaborations in the paper itself”. The data underlying the paper probably doesn’t fit under “essential”. http://pubs.acs.org/userimages/ContentEditor/1302639702366/FAQSupportInfo.pdf So, by the ACS definition, it is probably not SI. So I wouldn’t try to make it appear as such. I don’t see any need to make data access statements particularly easy for the EPSRC to identify - as the aim is to make data a first class research output, I would expect it to be cited in a similar manner to other work. So I’d just mention its existence in the paper and include it in the references. Steve Welburn -- Steve Welburn, Research Consultant - IT Services Research Queen Mary University of London Tel: +44 (0)20 7882 6939 [log in to unmask] 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: >“The research data supporting this publication can be accessed at [DOI]” > >The Journal was not happy and asked our researcher to remove the sentence and include the “material” 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: > >“Supporting 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).” > >The concerning bit here is “no other URL is acceptable” 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)… > >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