 |
 |
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 <[log in to unmask]> 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: [log in to unmask] > To: [log in to unmask] > > 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 > > > > > > >