[Esip-preserve] Update on Coalition on Publishing Data in the Earth and Space Science

[Bruce Barkstrom]

I think the problem of multiple, mildly or wildly inconsistent, sources of
information,
all of which need maintenance is going to be with us for the indefinite
future.  In the
last few days I got a new issue of the SIAM (Society of Industrial and
Applied Mathematics) Review
whose lead article is titled "Heterophillous Dynamics Enhances Consensus".
It's got
a lot of math, of course, but it's trying to get to a mathematical
description of what it
takes to get a consensus.  The math has applications to colonies of ants,
flocks of
birds, parties of people, and how clusters emerge through the
self-alignment of agents.
The common assumptions show up in our "birds of a feather" meetings, since
(as the
abstract of the paper notes) "similarity breeds connection ... reflecting a
common
tendency to align with those who think or act alike"  The article argues
for a somewhat
different position: "it is more likely to approach ... consensus when the
interactions
among agents increase as a function of their difference in position. ...
the tendency to
bond more with those who are different rather than with those who are
similar, plays
a decisive role in the process of clustering."  There are also ties to
"opinion dynamcs"
as well as vocabulary evolution.  It doesn't look to me like there's a
consensus on
how a consensus emerges in these areas, as well as in data referencing.

For what it's worth, the article [Motsch, S. and Tadmor, E., 2014:
Heterophilious
Dynamces Enhances Consensus, SIAM Review, Vol. 56, No. 4, pp. 577-621]
doesn't seem to have a DOI on its first page.

If we feel we're on the brink of a breakthrough, perhaps we can follow Henry
"Once more into the breach."  Otherwise, perhaps a continuation of
bombardment
is a more prudent approach, albeit requiring additional supplies of
ammunition
and combatants.

Bruce B.

Bruce B.

On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Ramapriyan, Hampapuram K.
(GSFC-423.0)[SCIENCE SYSTEMS AND APPLICATIONS INC] via Esip-preserve <
esip-preserve at lists.esipfed.org> wrote:

>  Mark,
> Thanks for forwarding your note to Brooks and Kerstin. I was curious about
> Re3data you referred to below. I am not sure how they operate, but whenever
> I see a "portal" such as this, I tend to see how they are representing what
> I am familiar with. So, I tried to look for EOSDIS. I found incomplete and
> some incorrect information. It seems to me that if we have to track many
> many of such portals to ensure our own information is correct, it will
> involve a lot of labor. The information also tends to become obsolete
> unless it is actively maintained, which again takes labor. Given problems I
> find about what I am familiar with, I am not sure how reliable the
> information is about other entities represented there.
> Rama.
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* Parsons, Mark [parsom3 at rpi.edu]
> *Sent:* Friday, January 02, 2015 11:13 AM
> *To:* Ramapriyan, Hampapuram K. (GSFC-423.0)[SCIENCE SYSTEMS AND
> APPLICATIONS INC]
> *Cc:* esip-preserve at lists.esipfed.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Esip-preserve] Update on Coalition on Publishing Data in
> the Earth and Space Science
>
>  Thanks Rama. although I was at the meeting, I didn’t get this message
> for some reason.
>
>  Here is the message I sent to Brooks and Kerstin:
>
>  Hi Brooks and Kerstin,
>
>  Happy new year. Thank you for leading the community in trying to
> establish a more formalized process for linking Earth and space science
> data sets to publications. Please add me to your distribution list. I must
> have missed the sign up at the meeting at AGU.
>
>  Please allow me to offer some comments on the Statement of Commitment.
> First of all, apologies if I seemed overly contrary at the meeting, I was
> primarily trying to ensure that the data management community doesn’t work
> at cross purposes. As such, I think it is really important that you
> coordinate your repository directory with the Re3Data effort. I recognize
> that might make things a bit more complicated, but I fear if we have myriad
> conflicting directories of repositories, we undermine your primary goal of
> making things easier for authors and publishers. Also I am concerned that
> there is not always a clear definition as to what repositories hold Earth
> and space science data (or what authors or publications reference such
> data). In our increasingly interdisciplinary world, it is getting harder to
> draw disciplinary lines.
>
>  I am not directly involved with Re3Data, but they seem the most mature
> effort in this area. It would be worthwhile to invite a representative or
> two to your next meeting.  I encourage you to at least consider adopting
> (or extending) their existing schema. This could allow better sharing
> across directories. I am not so naive to assume there will ever be only one
> authoritative directory of repositories, but it sure would be nice if they
> were interoperable.
>
>  Now some specific comments on the Statement of Commitment.
>
>  - The first bullet reaffirms publishers commitment to their data
> statements. Shouldn’t it be clear that they are affirming commitment to
> statements that require ethically open data? This is implied more in the
> second bullet, but it could be clearer in the first bullet. Perhaps the
> statement needs a clear statement on the need for open data (borrowing from
> ICSU or similar perhaps).
>
>  - By referencing existing statements in the second bullet, do you mean
> to endorse them? I haven’t reviewed them all, but I would be surprised if
> they were truly compatible.
>
>  - Third bullet. Do you mean to limit the options to domain repositories?
> You mention institutions and libraries. While I’m a big fan of domain
> repositories, it seems institutional repositories may also play an
> important role.
>
>  - Fourth bullet. I don’t think we should look to the journals to be a
> fall back when there is not a suitable repository. Journals are not well
> equipped to manage data and should really only do so in very narrow
> circumstances with static data. I understand that we need a solution for
> when repositories don’t exist, but I don’t think journals are an
> appropriate substitute very often, especially if it means the data access
> requires a subscription.
>
>  - Use of identifiers is very good, but what makes the DOI the ideal?
> ARKs and Handles work well too, for example. My main point is that it is
> often dangerous to specify a particular technology in high-level statements
> like this. DOIs may be cool today. Will they be tomorrow? The main thing is
> that we use persistent resolvable identifiers. Most citation guidelines
> address this without entering the identifier debate.
>
>  - Last bullet. Are you talking about peer-review of the article or of
> the data? Reviewers of articles should definitely look at the data, but I
> don’t think peer review (in the classic sense) of data is a reasonable way
> to assert data quality. It is not clear who the appropriate “peers” are,
> and we have seen repeatedly that data are used effectively beyond the
> intention of the original collectors and their immediate peers. I also
> think it is dangerous to open up the idea of embargo periods. While there
> may be times that embargoes are appropriate, too often they are used as
> excuses to unfairly restrict data access. Certainly if a paper is
> published, the underlying data should be available without an embargo
> (given appropriate ethical, not proprietary, constraints)
>
>  I also invite you all to collaborate with RDA to make this a
> more international effort. This may be simply a matter of identifying
> liaisons between your Coalition and relevant RDA groups just to make sure
> there is cross-fertilization of ideas and not undue competition. Some
> relevant RDA groups you might want to interact with include (many of these
> are already in collaboration with other international groups):
> Data Citation WG: https://www.rd-alliance.org/groups/data-citation-wg.html
> Domain Repositories IG:
> https://www.rd-alliance.org/groups/domain-repositories-interest-group.html
> Education and Training IG:
> https://www.rd-alliance.org/groups/education-and-training-handling-research-data.html
> Certification of Digital Repositories:
> https://www.rd-alliance.org/groups/rdawds-certification-digital-repositories-ig.html
> Data Publishing Services WG:
> https://www.rd-alliance.org/groups/rdawds-publishing-data-services-wg.html
>
>
>  Finally, I remind you that much, if not most, Earth science data use
> occurs outside of formal scholarly discourse (planning, education,
> prediction, policy, etc.). We should not let the constraints of formal
> scholarly publication overly define our approaches for data discovery,
> access, and archiving.
>
>  Thanks for all your efforts
>
>  -m.
>
>
>
>    Mark A. Parsons
> Secretary General, Research Data Alliance
> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
> http://rd-alliance.org, http://idea.rpi.edu
> +1 518 410 3808
> Skype: mark.a.parsons
> mail: 1550 Linden Ave., Boulder CO 80304, USA
>
>  On Dec 31, 2014, at 2:55 PM, Ramapriyan, Hampapuram K.
> (GSFC-423.0)[SCIENCE SYSTEMS AND APPLICATIONS INC] via Esip-preserve <
> esip-preserve at lists.esipfed.org> wrote:
>
>   All,
>  Some of us from the Data Stewardship Committee were at the Thursday
> afternoon meeting referred to in the message below. I thought most of the
> folks in the esip-preserve group would be interested in the message; so I
> am forwarding it.
>  Happy New Year, and hope to see many of you next week.
>  Rama.
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* Brooks Hanson [BHanson at agu.org]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 31, 2014 10:18 AM
> *To:* IJ.J.Aalbersberg at elsevier.com; Tim Ahern; gralen at bodc.ac.uk;
> lee.allison at azgs.az.gov; David Applegate; arko at ldeo.columbia.edu;
> l.bandounas at elsevier.com; v.balaji at noaa.gov; ibsz100 at iupui.edu;
> gerry.barton at gmail.com; irina.bastrakova at ga.gov.au;
> reginald.beach at navy.mil; stace at whoi.edu; kbene at umn.edu;
> Chris.Bendall at springer.com; Laura.Biven at science.doe.gov;
> bohrson at geology.cwu.edu; boler at unavco.org; sara at cos.io; mbradfor at aaas.org;
>  sbristol at usgs.gov; j.brodholt at ucl.ac.uk; SBuck at arnoldfoundation.org;
> carbotte at ldeo.columbia.edu; rcarlson at ciw.edu; tcarpenter at niso.org;
> ccanevari at usgs.gov; dcarlson at wmo.int; rchadduc at nsf.gov; cchandler at whoi.edu;
> Cyndy Chandler; clement at iodp.tamu.edu; joan.cleveland at navy.mil;
> executive_secretary at egu.edu; Peter_E._Colohan at ostp.eop.gov;
> p.cumine at elsevier.com; Cathy Constable; joelcg at illinois.edu;
> Tamara_L_Dickinson at ostp.eop.gov; desilvas at geosphere.oregonstate.edu;
> mdiepenbroek at pangaea.de; leo.j.donner at noaa.gov; doser at geo.utep.edu;
> tom.drake at navy.mil; rduerr at nsidc.org; nelia at nmt.edu;
> David.Easterling at noaa.gov; Tim.Elliott at bristol.ac.uk;
> Craig.Emerson at proquest.com; K.Eve at elsevier.com; dfils at oceanleadership.org;
>  flynngi at plattsburgh.edu; Victoria Forlini; foster at iodp.tamu.edu;
> afriedla at nsf.gov; mfriedman at ametsoc.org; Harry Furukawa;
> liz.ferguson at wiley.com; Allen, Gale (HQ-AE000); geissman at utdallas.edu;
> goldfarb at usgs.gov; jgoldstein at usgcrp.gov; Allan.Graubard at oup.com;
> greenberg at sloan.org; bgrochol at aaas.org; Grossman, Jeffrey N. (HQ-DG000);
> Timothy Grove; hagemansj at appstate.edu; jhammann at geosociety.org; Brooks
> Hanson; shardy at carnegiescience.edu; kheideman at ametsoc.org;
> Justin.hnilo at science.doe.gov; RHooper at cuahsi.org; mhoward at mays.tamu.edu;
> Andrew.Hufton at nature.com; imker at illinois.edu; Thomas.R.Karl at noaa.gov;
> ekavanagh at nas.edu; smk16 at cornell.edu; kkelner at aaas.org; kkirk at usgs.gov;
> H.Koers at elsevier.com; H.Langenberg at nature.com; adam.leary at oup.com;
> Leisner, Jared S. (HQ-DG000)[SMART DATA SOLUTIONS]; Kersten Lehnert;
> george.a.lembrick.civ at mail.mil; peter.loewe at gmx.de;
> D.Lovegrove at elsevier.com; Tamsin.Mather at earth.ox.ac.uk; mayernik at ucar.edu;
>  malone at iodp.tamu.edu; kevin.marvel at aas.org; neal.marriott at geolsoc.org.uk;
>  bmarty at crpg.cnrs-nancy.fr; cpm47 at case.edu; bmacfadd at flmnh.ufl.edu;
> Marcia McNutt; econgeol at segweb.org; michael at usgs.gov;
> william.michener at gmail.com; J.B.M.Middelburg at uu.nl; jbminster at ucsd.edu;
> fmurphy at wiley.com; New, Michael H. (HQ-DG000); rnewman at iris.washington.edu
> ; edmund.nickless at geolsoc.org.uk; noren021 at umn.edu; marc.norman at anu.edu.au
> ; c.p.north at abdn.ac.uk; anorthcu at nsf.gov; nosek at cos.io; spadhye at wiley.com;
>  parsons3 at rpi.edu; hans.pfeiffenberger at awi.de; u.poschl at mpic.de;
> kputirka at csufresno.edu; johann.raith at unileoben.ac.at; mohan at ucar.edu;
> rama.ramapriyan at nasa.gov; bransom at nsf.gov; lraymond at whoi.edu; Laurie
> Reisberg; Nancy.Ritchey at noaa.gov; Carly.Robinson at science.doe.gov;
> erinrobinson at esipfed.org; Linda Rowan; drowley at uchicago.edu;
> rrussell at minsocam.org; danny.rye at yale.edu; DSalsbur at nas.edu; andrew at cos.io
> ; h.h.g.savenije at tudelft.nl; publications at egu.edu; uschindler at pangaea.de;
> roberta.s.schoen.civ at mail.mil; johanna.schwarz at springer.com;
> MSeul at cuahsi.org; Barbara Sherwood Lollar; sshirey at carnegiescience.edu;
> Lexi Shultz; hjsmith at aaas.org; j_a_speer at minsocam.org;
> julie.steffen at aas.org; suyehiro at jamstec.go.jp; Sullenberger, Diane;
> athornhill at usgs.gov; Tilmes, Curt (GSFC-6190); ttoler at wiley.com;
> htong at usgs.gov; PUhlir at nas.edu; Robert van der Hilst;
> xenia.van.edig at copernicus.org; vance at geoscienceworld.org;
> J.Vandecar at nature.com; tjv at bio.unc.edu; bwainman at usgs.gov; awalton at nsf.gov;
> Mary Warner; Marian.Westley at noaa.gov; westphal at ssl.berkeley.edu;
> A.Whitchurch at nature.com; nwiggint at aaas.org; Billy M. Williams;
> M.Wilson at earth.leeds.ac.uk;rewolfe at usgcrp.gov;
> Nick.Woodward at science.doe.gov; lesley.wyborn at anu.edu.au; jyeston at aaas.org;
>  ezanzerk at nsf.gov; xin.zhang at noaa.gov; wezhang at wiley.com
> *Cc:* Brooks Hanson
> *Subject:* Update on Coalition on Publishing Data in the Earth and Space
> Science
>
>    Hi all
>
>
>  Happy New Year! Here’s some updates on the Coalition activities and
> Statement of Commitment.
>
>
>  1.     We held a meeting Thursday afternoon during the Fall AGU
> Meeting.  Attendance was about 40 representing journals, repositories,
> societies, and government agencies, including NSF, both in the US and
> internationally.  This followed up a similar meeting at GSA. We are
> planning to continue these meetings at future EGU, GSA, AGU, and other
> relevant conferences.
>
>
>  2.     We are aiming to release the Statement of Commitment formally on
> Thursday 15 January.  This will be after the ESIP meeting the first week of
> January, and the Council of Data Facilities meeting, allowing further
> discussions there and opportunities for others to join.  Current
> signatories are many of the publishers/journals in the Earth and space
> sciences and several repositories.  We will keep a current list here
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/129OsgJRdmRcFrk-we88MHViToafB0J0ocivwWYKF1wA/edit?usp=sharing>.
> We (Kerstin and Brooks) are working on a piece for *Eos* to accompany the
> release that will cover the history and some of the ongoing efforts.
> Others are certainly welcome/encouraged to comment on the Statement and
> Coalition efforts or promote them as they deem appropriate within their own
> organizations, societies, publications, etc.  The current statement is
> here <http://bit.ly/COPDESS-Statement>.
>
>
>  3.     Based on discussions at the meeting and in other exchanges, we
> would like to clarify again the objectives of this effort are and what is
> expected specifically from signatories:  The larger goal of the Coalition
> aligns with that of many other efforts to ensure reproducibility of science
> and open, persistent access to the data that underlie scientific
> publications.  The Coalition primarily aims to (a) foster consensus and
> consistency among publishers, editors, funders, and data repositories on
> how data that are part of scholarly publications should be curated and
> published; (b) help data repositories collect the data that are within
> their scope easier and more comprehensively and raise their visibility; (c)
> help authors properly submit their data to repositories up front by
> simplifying the data submission process and providing sufficient
> information about it, and (d) help journals and funding agencies by doing
> all of the above.  Collectively, all of these help identify best practices
> and promulgate them, which will ultimately improve the integrity of data
> associated with publication.  The statement is a notice that we are working
> together toward these goals and to elevate attention to these.  There are
> no implied mandates that repositories need to alter or expand the types of
> data they are currently receiving, nor to develop new functionality per se
> (that is, no unfunded mandates).  One hopeful outcome might be to identify
> areas where new repositories might be needed or provide common purpose and
> visibility for further support.  We anticipate that there will always be
> complicated cases of data where identifiers may not be appropriate, where
> one-to-one matches or links with publications don’t apply, etc. and the
> statement is not meant to imply otherwise.  While we hope that edge cases
> are always apparent in any such document, and should be understood under
> the wording, suggestions for improvement that would alleviate or clarify
> any concerns while ideally preserving the higher intent are welcome.
>
>
>  4.     One of the tangible steps, supported by a grant from NSF, was to
> develop a directory of Earth and space science repositories that journals
> collectively could use as part of their information to authors, simplifying
> the process for both.  This directory would provide relevant information
> (metadata) about repositories to authors and journals, provide transparency
> with respect to attributes of repositories, and be organized to help
> researchers rapidly identify homes for various data types and what is
> needed to comply with and facilitate deposition.  We have begun working
> with the Center for Open Science (COS) on starting to develop an
> open-source platform for at least an initial version and are in the early
> stages of designing requirements for it, and would value your input.  This
> would be a natural extension of open-source research-oriented software that
> COS already is developing (e.g, here  <http://osf.io/>and here
> <https://github.com/CenterForOpenScience/SHARE/wiki>). Several items were
> discussed: We are not intending any accrediting, and are and will be
> reaching out to you regarding attributes or other information to include.
> The directory is intended to help users in the Earth and space sciences
> (authors and journals) find appropriate homes for data primarily based on
> data types, disciplines, and standard information about repositories.  It
> is not intended to replicate other listings, or be a search platform for
> finding data.  We will try and design it so that input of information from
> and about repositories is easy/simple, and that functional integration,
> current and future, with other directories and repositories themselves is
> facilitated.
>
>
>  5.     A working group has also started brainstorming and organizing
> information regarding training on data and methods, both from repositories
> and elsewhere. We will be providing additional updates soon.
>
>
>  6.     Next steps of the Coalition will be discussion at the upcoming
> ESIP and CDF meetings in early January (thanks to both groups for their
> support), and at the spring EGU and summer Goldschmidt meetings.   We will
> explore also a larger meeting again in the fall.
>
>
>  7.     Marcia McNutt also announced a meeting that Science is organizing
> with the Arnold Foundation, AGU, and others on reproducibility in field
> sciences (covering earth science, ecology, etc.) that will be held this
> spring, possibly at AGU in Washington.  This will be the third such
> meeting; previous meetings have focused on clinical trials, and lab
> research and have resulted in some tangible outcomes and commitments
> regarding peer review and more.  We are in the process of exploring dates,
> and further updates should be come soon.
>
>
>  Many thanks to all of you for your interest and input, and to many who
> have provided specific input, thoughts, and time.  If anyone is interested
> in helping or assisting on any aspects, specific or general, going forward,
> or have additional questions or thoughts, please let us know!
>
>
>  Best regards,
>  Kerstin and Brooks
>  Brooks Hanson
> Director, Publications
> American Geophysical Union
> +1.202.777.7520
> BHanson at agu.org
> www.agu.org
>
>
>    *AGU galvanizes a community of Earth and space scientists that
> collaboratively advances and communicates science and its power to ensure a
> sustainable future.*
>  * ------------------------------ *
>
> AGU Fall Meeting  <http://fallmeeting.agu.org/2014/>
> * 15-19 December San Francisco, CA*
>
>
>
>   <http://www.facebook.com/AmericanGeophysicalUnion>
> <http://www.twitter.com/theagu>
>
>     _______________________________________________
> Esip-preserve mailing list
> Esip-preserve at lists.esipfed.org
> http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/esip-preserve
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Esip-preserve mailing list
> Esip-preserve at lists.esipfed.org
> http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/esip-preserve
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.deltaforce.net/pipermail/esip-preserve/attachments/20150102/7f7a3847/attachment-0001.html>