JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for CCP4BB Archives


CCP4BB Archives

CCP4BB Archives


CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CCP4BB Home

CCP4BB Home

CCP4BB  April 2016

CCP4BB April 2016

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Fwd: Implementation of the ESRF Data Policy

From:

Mark J van Raaij <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Mark J van Raaij <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 8 Apr 2016 12:25:59 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (75 lines)

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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager