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

Crosas, Mercè mcrosas at g.harvard.edu
Mon Nov 4 12:40:44 EST 2019

Very goop points, George. We also work towards making research data as open
as possible, but understanding the limitations due to privacy and
supporting responsible research.

Open metadata for findability is an important part of that, as Tim points
out (see more in the topic on a recent talk for open science
recommendations and examples:

Mercè Crosas, Ph.D.
University Research Data Officer,  HUIT  |   Chief Data Science and
Technology Officer, IQSS
Harvard University
mcrosas at g.harvard.edu | @mercecrosas <https://twitter.com/mercecrosas> |

On Sun, Nov 3, 2019 at 11:21 PM George Alter <altergc at umich.edu> wrote:

> Hi Mercury and Mark,
> It should be noted that NSF Arctic is not the only US funding agency with
> an effective policy on data sharing.  The National Institute of Justice
> withholds a portion of the grant until data have been archived.  (See
> https://nij.ojp.gov/funding/submitting-data-under-data-resources-program
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__nij.ojp.gov_funding_submitting-2Ddata-2Dunder-2Ddata-2Dresources-2Dprogram&d=DwMFaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=n9HCCtgqDPssu5vpqjbO3q4h2g6vMeTOp0Ez7NsdVFM&m=0_L92nG6IiWso2R4ywi-ZrPQScelBR1rITvcUfn_EAU&s=MY6cXYjYrXiooGEZeImLEvJrPnBuShdnuVffnSLDals&e=>)
>  NIJ has been doing this for about 10 years, and as Mercury expects,
> holding back some money is a very good way of getting compliance.  NIJ
> currently requires data to be sent to an archive that they fund at ICPSR,
> and we inform NIJ to release the money when the data have arrived.
> I also want to remind everyone that "open data" can be a misleading term
> in this context.  Some of the data archived by NIJ grantees cannot be
> "open" in the sense that it is available for download on the Internet.
> Since the data often includes sensitive information, such as criminal
> histories, ICPSR allows access to those data under conditions designed to
> protect confidential information.  ICPSR and other data archives have
> developed a variety of ways to provide secure access to confidential data.
> This is very important, because protection of research subjects is often
> used as an excuse for not sharing data.  If these discussions only use the
> term "open data", we will keep repeating debates about sensitive data that
> have already been settled.  FAIR is a much better rubric than "open", but
> it would be good to have a term that implies equality of access even when
> the data must be used in a protected environment.
>        George
> ---------------------------------------------------
> George Alter
> Research Professor, ICPSR
> Professor of History, University of Michigan
> PO Box 1248, Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1248
> Tel: 734-478-0783    Fax: 734-647-8200
> Email: altergc at umich.edu
> On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 11:40 PM Ross Wilkinson <ross.wilkinson at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Hi All, In support of Mark,
>> To get the change we all seek, come up with a policy that has broad
>> support and apply it, as the Polar Data Centre has done, provide
>> infrastructure and agreements as in Codata and RDA and WDS efforts, and
>> find good practice, and promote it, as Australia did with a Festival of
>> Open data.
>> Policy. practice and infrastructure are all needed, and together to
>> obtain the very big change in practice that is needed.
>> We found that the key was to “get on with it”, rather than seeking
>> perfect practice, perfect metadata, perfect compliance. In fact perfect
>> gets in the way of rapid change.
>> ….Ross
>> -----------
>> M: +61 419 53 41 63
>> On 2 Nov 2019, at 4:44 am, Parsons, Mark <parsom3 at rpi.edu> wrote:
>> Falk, I can’t find all your data for you. Nor can I make sure they are in
>> formats you like. All I can say is that my experience as a member of the
>> NSF Arctic Data Center Advisory Committee indicates that the NSF Arctic
>> program has had a very solid and enforced data policy for the last several
>> years.
>> Does it cover all US-funded Arctic data? No. It doesn’t even cover past
>> NSF data. Are there exceptions? Yes. Do some investigators manage to weasel
>> around the policy? Of course. Nonetheless, I think it is a model for the
>> rest of NSF if not the rest of the US government. The policy is largely
>> what we called for in IPY and it should be promoted not denigrated.
>> Regardless, screeds on the CODATA list are unlikely to improve it or other
>> program or agency policies.
>> cheers,
>> -m.
>> On 1 Nov 2019, at 11:21, Falk Huettmann <fhuettmann at alaska.edu> wrote:
>> Hi there, Mark et al.,
>> 100% no!
>> So for the Arctic records then, U.S.,
>> where are -ONLINE OPEN ACCESS - the ARCTIC U.S. polar bear GPS and
>> telemetry tracking data, same for arctic fox,
>> and where are the bowhead whale data, killer whale data, all the seal
>> data, and the survey and trawling
>> data by U.S. vessels, with NOAA/NMFS directly involved  and during IPY?
>> People want to see and use them; that includes students
>> And where are the ARCTIC USDA data on Avian Influenza, and the FIA Forest
>> plot
>> data for Alaska, all with GPS and geo-referencing  and metadata?
>> Where are the Arctic Bird Banding data, Golden Eagles included, Open
>> Access online ?
>> Bering Sea salmon and seabird survey data; 30 years of records there;
>> where are they and who can use them,
>> apart of a few agencies and their contractors ?
>> Please provide exact details then for people to use those data.
>> Again, Mark, that's FOR THE ARCTIC, U.S., with federal as well NSF and
>> NIH involvement,
>> including permits of land-use, animal care and  vets approval.
>> And the devil here often sits in the detail instead and data are not
>> really useable (even when a URL exists),
>> that is, meaningful GPS coordinates and taxonomy, and usable data
>> formats, nor somebody available to talk to.
>> NetCDF is 100% NOT IT, that is for many  of the NOAA and NMFS climate
>> data, as an example.
>> IPCC are the others (ARCTIC) and so are the data related to Prudhoe Bay,
>> or Barrow, Arctic Drilling,
>> and the Bering Sea, all part of the ARCTIC U.S. you refer to.
>> Here a good one, as one example of many for you to solve:
>> https://twitter.com/RachaelOrben/status/1115653598929616896
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_RachaelOrben_status_1115653598929616896&d=DwMFaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=n9HCCtgqDPssu5vpqjbO3q4h2g6vMeTOp0Ez7NsdVFM&m=0_L92nG6IiWso2R4ywi-ZrPQScelBR1rITvcUfn_EAU&s=emjpiXKO-Gj9dtBsPjJqzRiHTjP9lNFk0uf3aTPHv4M&e=>
>> How to get and use those data, with metadata, why not in GBIF, OBIS,
>> hardly Movebank for public download, e.g. in R ?
>> Please provide details  on those to us please Mark, all as you stated and
>> worked on for years, Arctic + IPY and beyond all with your direct
>> involvement .
>> What's the track record here ?.
>> In 'the U.S. Arctic' there are now also Japanese, Koreans, Indians and
>> Chinese working, apart of Russia as the main player, for over 50 years.
>> WHERE ARE THESE DATA, and why not pushed more, mandatory (as we all agree
>> on) ?
>> So instead of making such bold and well-sounding claims, I propose Mark,
>> you can first ask people who actually know and work with, and use and need
>> such data
>> for decades for a simple reality check and advise, and to actually
>> progress.
>> We have enough empty promises indeed. I see them almost daily but I ask
>> for data open access online instead.
>> Re. journal data submissions received: does that not speak volumes by
>> itself, e.g. objectives of such a science and rewards, or who really cares ?
>> Thanks again; kindly from 'the Arctic'
>>     Falk Huettmann PhD, Professor
>>         Uni of Alaska Fairbanks
>> PS Instead of claimed progress on Open Access, I propose we can have a
>> publication and journal where the failures of NOT Open Access data sharing
>> are outlined and discussed.
>> It's gigantic and on the rise: Arctic, Antarctic, Asia and Africa etc etc
>> On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 8:44 AM Parsons, Mark <parsom3 at rpi.edu> wrote:
>>> On 1 Nov 2019, at 10:04, Mercury Fox <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.
>> _______________________________________________
>> CODATA-international mailing list
>> CODATA-international at lists.codata.org
>> http://lists.codata.org/mailman/listinfo/codata-international_lists.codata.org
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.codata.org_mailman_listinfo_codata-2Dinternational-5Flists.codata.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=n9HCCtgqDPssu5vpqjbO3q4h2g6vMeTOp0Ez7NsdVFM&m=0_L92nG6IiWso2R4ywi-ZrPQScelBR1rITvcUfn_EAU&s=qrkHSb08J01NwYJpkLQAT5Qd7EhZ0FQ4UcGIhh6_R4g&e=>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CODATA-international mailing list
>> CODATA-international at lists.codata.org
>> http://lists.codata.org/mailman/listinfo/codata-international_lists.codata.org
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.codata.org_mailman_listinfo_codata-2Dinternational-5Flists.codata.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=n9HCCtgqDPssu5vpqjbO3q4h2g6vMeTOp0Ez7NsdVFM&m=0_L92nG6IiWso2R4ywi-ZrPQScelBR1rITvcUfn_EAU&s=qrkHSb08J01NwYJpkLQAT5Qd7EhZ0FQ4UcGIhh6_R4g&e=>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.codata.org/pipermail/codata-international_lists.codata.org/attachments/20191104/9c41968a/attachment.html>

More information about the CODATA-international mailing list