[CODATA-international] October 2019: Publications in the Data Science Journal

[Dewaard, Anita (ELS-HBE)]

It would actually be very interesting to 'get you started on the publishing industry', Mark!

I completely agree with Mercury that 'publishers should be partners in the research ecosystem, not gatekeepers who determine what gets in 
and what stays out of the sphere of public knowledge':  so what should we do, that we're not currently doing, to be the best partners that we can be? 

Thanks so much for your advice!

Best,

Anita


Anita de Waard
Vice President of Research Collaborations 
Elsevier Research Collaborations Unit
71 Hanley Lane, Jericho, VT 05465 
@anitawaard | +1 (619) 252 8589

-----Original Message-----
From: CODATA-international <codata-international-bounces at lists.codata.org> On Behalf Of Parsons, Mark
Sent: Friday, November 1, 2019 1:56 PM
To: Mercury Fox <ceds at email.arizona.edu>
Cc: Falk Huettmann <fhuettmann at alaska.edu>; CODATA International <codata-international at lists.codata.org>
Subject: Re: [CODATA-international] October 2019: Publications in the Data Science Journal


I totally agree, Mercury. (Don’t get me started on the publishing industry). I just wanted to give credit to one small program (NSF Arctic) that is doing the right thing, and that other agencies and programs should follow its lead.

cheers,

-m.

> On 1 Nov 2019, at 11:52, Mercury Fox <ceds at email.arizona.edu> wrote:
>
> Thanks, Mark--that's a great point.  That program's open data policy 
> is stated in the DCL 
> (https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2016/nsf16055/nsf16055.jsp), which also 
> states that the policy is a requirement of international treaty, which 
> probably provides some context for the political will behind the 
> policy in this case.  My point is that this kind of clear policy 
> directive shouldn't be a one-off.
>
> And since I'm on a soap box about it, I also don't think it's 
> acceptable for NSF & c. to expect the scientific community to simply 
> shift norms and practices in this regard, when the federal funding 
> agencies are unwilling to change the institutional conditions that 
> drive those norms.
>
> And another thing... I also think it's inappropriate for them to pass 
> their oversight and quality control duties to the publishing industry, 
> which is basically a roadmap for corruption.  I'm not pointing fingers 
> at any specific publisher or agency; but publishers should be partners 
> in the research ecosystem, not gatekeepers who determine what gets in 
> and what stays out of the sphere of public knowledge.
>
> OK, that's all the rant I have left in me for today.  Thanks everybody 
> and have a great weekend!
>
>
> -Mercury
>
> On 11/1/19, Parsons, Mark <parsom3 at rpi.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 1 Nov 2019, at 10:04, Mercury Fox
>> <ceds at email.arizona.edu<mailto:ceds at email.arizona.edu>> wrote:
>>
>> they could change the norm overnight by simply tying the policy to 
>> the award and requiring open data as a deliverable.
>>
>> For the record, the NSF Arctic Program does just that, and they 
>> follow up and do QC, AND they fund an archive to make it possible.
>>
>> cheers,
>>
>> -m.
>>
>
>
> --
> Merc Fox
> Director, CODATA-UA Center of Excellence in Data for Society
> Data7 + iSchool
> University of Arizona
> Tucson, AZ  85721
>
> https://ceds.arizona.edu
>
> https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0726-7301

_______________________________________________
CODATA-international mailing list
CODATA-international at lists.codata.org
http://lists.codata.org/mailman/listinfo/codata-international_lists.codata.org