Dear Adrian, Although the thread has moved on, one clarification on your comparison to Diamond’s data policy, Although Diamond does archive all YOUR data from peer reviewed research (note no distinction between raw and processed), according to our terms or usage we do not make that data open access.
The current status was recently reviewed and presented to Diamond User Committee (DUC) with the below slides and I believe was recently summarised by John Helliwell at a recent BCA meeting as part of a broader overview. https://www.dropbox.com/s/q7twrbodmv3cqmr/160309%20Current%20archive%20status%20at%20Diamond.pdf?dl=0 The policy is under constant review and we encourage Diamond users to send their feedback (support or objections) e.g. via their DUC representative. The relevant links: Diamond Experiment Data Management Policy: http://www.diamond.ac.uk/Users/UserGuide/Data-User-Guide/Accessing-Data/Data-Policy.html Diamond User Committee http://www.diamond.ac.uk/Home/Company/Management/DUC.html From: Adrian Goldman [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 08 April 2016 11:09 Subject: Re: Implementation of the ESRF Data Policy Xavier, As far as I am aware, this brings the ESRF policy in line with eg the policy at Diamond. I mostly agree with you; and anyway the current policy being implemented certainly in the UK of keeping everything for 10 years is I think ridiculous: most of the data that we collect is completely useless. Sadly. I was at the ESRF council meeting where this was discussed, and there was to the best of my recollection very little enthusiasm for other proposals. In addition, I think a little bit of misdirection in ones naming and data collection strategy will suffice to make sure that the data collected is not actually usable by a competitor lab, unless they happen to have exactly the same crystal form, same construct etc as you. As such misdirection is also already prevalent in high-impact factor papers, plus other small acts of malfeasance, like sending out clones that do _not_ correspond to the ones reported in the literature, I am sure it will not be beyond one’s wit to come up with similar strategies for data at the beamline. I am by no means condoning such behaviour, nor do I do it: I have merely noticed it in others and what they publish/have sent us. For obvious reasons, I am not going to name names. Adrian ps: The larger question surely is what societal purpose is served by this level of competition? My feeling is: not much. On 8 Apr 2016, at 12:47, F.Xavier Gomis-Rüth <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> 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: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> 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<http://www.esrf.fr/home/news/general/content-news/general/esrf-takes-the-helm-in-saving-data.html>. The ESRF data policy document and the status of implementation on the different ESRF beamlines can be consulted here<http://www.esrf.fr/home/UsersAndScience/UserGuide/esrf-data-policy-implementation.html>. Best wishes, ESRF - User Office Tel: + 33 (0)4 76 88 23 58 / 25 52 /28 80 -- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential, copyright and or privileged material, and are for the use of the intended addressee only. If you are not the intended addressee or an authorised recipient of the addressee please notify us of receipt by returning the e-mail and do not use, copy, retain, distribute or disclose the information in or attached to the e-mail. Any opinions expressed within this e-mail are those of the individual and not necessarily of Diamond Light Source Ltd. Diamond Light Source Ltd. cannot guarantee that this e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses and we cannot accept liability for any damage which you may sustain as a result of software viruses which may be transmitted in or with the message. Diamond Light Source Limited (company no. 4375679). Registered in England and Wales with its registered office at Diamond House, Harwell Science and Innovation Campus, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 0DE, United Kingdom
