Dear Roger, At the recent ICSTI Workshop on Delivering Data in science the NSF presenter, when I asked about monitoring, replied that the PIs' annual reports should include data management aspects. See http://www.icsti.org/spip.php?rubrique42 Best wishes, John
Prof John R Helliwell DSc FInstP CPhys FRSC CChem F Soc Biol. Chair School of Chemistry, University of Manchester, Athena Swan Team. http://www.chemistry.manchester.ac.uk/aboutus/athena/index.html On 5 Apr 2012, at 14:08, Roger Rowlett <rrowl...@colgate.edu> wrote: > FYI, every NSF grant proposal now must have a data management plan that > describes how all experimental data will be archived and in what formats. I'm > not sure how seriously these plans are monitored, but a plan must be provided > nevertheless. Is anyone NOT archiving their original data in some way? > > Roger Rowlett > > On Apr 5, 2012 7:16 AM, "John R Helliwell" <jrhelliw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear 'aales...@burnham.org', > > Re the pixel detector; yes this is an acknowledged raw data archiving > challenge; possible technical solutions include:- summing to make > coarser images ie in angular range, lossless compression (nicely > described on this CCP4bb by James Holton) or preserving a sufficient > sample of data....(but nb this debate is certainly not yet concluded). > > Re "And all this hassle is for the only real purpose of preventing data > fraud?" > > Well.....Why publish data? > Please let me offer some reasons: > • To enhance the reproducibility of a scientific experiment > • To verify or support the validity of deductions from an experiment > • To safeguard against error > • To allow other scholars to conduct further research based on > experiments already conducted > • To allow reanalysis at a later date, especially to extract 'new' > science as new techniques are developed > • To provide example materials for teaching and learning > • To provide long-term preservation of experimental results and future > access to them > • To permit systematic collection for comparative studies > • And, yes, To better safeguard against fraud than is apparently the > case at present > > Also to (probably) comply with your funding agency's grant conditions:- > Increasingly, funding agencies are requesting or requiring data > management policies (including provision for retention and access) to > be taken into account when awarding grants. See e.g. the Research > Councils UK Common Principles on Data Policy > (http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/research/Pages/DataPolicy.aspx) and the Digital > Curation Centre overview of funding policies in the UK > (http://www.dcc.ac.uk/resources/policy-and-legal/overview-funders-data-policies). > See also http://forums.iucr.org/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=58 for discussion > on policies relevant to crystallography in other countries. Nb these > policies extend over derived, processed and raw data, ie without > really an adequate clarity of policy from one to the other stages of > the 'data pyramid' ((see > http://www.stm-assoc.org/integration-of-data-and-publications). > > > And just to mention IUCr Journals Notes for Authors for biological > macromolecular structures, where we have our ie macromolecular > crystallography's version of the 'data pyramid' :- > > (1) Derived data > • Atomic coordinates, anisotropic or isotropic displacement > parameters, space group information, secondary structure and > information about biological functionality must be deposited with the > Protein Data Bank before or in concert with article publication; the > article will link to the PDB deposition using the PDB reference code. > • Relevant experimental parameters, unit-cell dimensions are required > as an integral part of article submission and are published within the > article. > > (2) Processed experimental data > • Structure factors must be deposited with the Protein Data Bank > before or in concert with article publication; the article will link > to the PDB deposition using the PDB reference code. > > (3) Primary experimental data (here I give small and macromolecule > Notes for Authors details):- > For small-unit-cell crystal/molecular structures and macromolecular > structures IUCr journals have no current binding policy regarding > publication of diffraction images or similar raw data entities. > However, the journals welcome efforts made to preserve and provide > primary experimental data sets. Authors are encouraged to make > arrangements for the diffraction data images for their structure to be > archived and available on request. > For articles that present the results of powder diffraction profile > fitting or refinement (Rietveld) methods, the primary diffraction > data, i.e. the numerical intensity of each measured point on the > profile as a function of scattering angle, should be deposited. > Fibre data should contain appropriate information such as a photograph > of the data. As primary diffraction data cannot be satisfactorily > extracted from such figures, the basic digital diffraction data should > be deposited. > > > Finally to mention that many IUCr Commissions are interested in the > possibility of establishing community practices for the orderly > retention and referencing of raw data sets, and the IUCr would like to > see such data sets become part of the routine record of scientific > research in the future, to the extent that this proves feasible and > cost-effective. > I draw your attention therefore to the IUCr Forum on such matters at:- > http://forums.iucr.org/ > Within this Forum you can find for example the ICSU convened Strategic > Coordinating Committee on Information and Data fairly recent report; > within this we learn of many other areas of science efforts on data > archiving and eg that the radio astronomy square kilometre array will > pose the biggest raw data archiving challenge on the planet.[Our needs > are thereby relatively modest.] > > The IUCr Diffraction Data Deposition Working Group is actively > addressing all these various issues. > We weclome your input at the IUCr Forum, which will thereby be most > timely. Thankyou. > > Best wishes, > Yours sincerely, > John > Professor John R Helliwell DSc > > > On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 1:24 AM, aaleshin <aales...@burnham.org> wrote: > > People who raise their voices for a prolonged storage of raw images miss a > > simple fact that the volume of collected data increases proportionally if > > not faster than the cost of storage space drops. I just had an opportunity > > to collect data with the PILATUS detector at SSRL and say you that monster > > allows slicing the data 4-5 times thinner than other detectors do. Some > > people also like collecting very redundant data sets. Even now, transferring > > and storage of raw data from a synchrotron is a pain in the neck, but in a > > few years it may become simply impractical. And all this hassle is for the > > only real purpose of preventing data fraud? An't there a cheaper and more > > adequate solutions to the problem? > > > > I also wonder why after the first occurrence of data fraud several years > > ago, PDB did not take any action to prevent its appearance in the future? Or > > administrative actions are simply impossible nowadays without a mega-dollar > > grant? > > > > > > > --
