AGU’s Position on The Importance of Archiving and Availability of Geophysical Data: Comments Invited
AGU’s current position statement on data preservation and availability was first adopted in 1997. It has been reaffirmed several times, but it has not undergone a revision since its initial acceptance. A panel has been assembled to revise the statement. The panel is charged with addressing the full range of data issues that are affecting Earth and space scientists globally. AGU members are being asked to provide comments to be considered in updating this policy statement.
As published in Eos | Position statement | Procedures for Developing Union Positions
April 16th, 2008 at 10:27 am
I’d like to see this position statement include language that recognizes research collections, many held by museums, as important data repositories. My colleagues are seeing biology collections discarded out of hand by many institutions. It strains our resources to take in “orphaned” collections. The events at the Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences and the Technische Universität Berlin are proof that geoscience collections are not necessarily safe. These collections house the raw materials for research, and preserve a geological diversity equal to biological diversity.
I’m not familiar with the history of this statement, and don’t wish to open a can of worms. But in the Museum community, we need all the help we can get.
May 9th, 2008 at 4:28 am
In addition to ‘research and operational programs’ which are mentioned in the statement, I would like to propose to explicitly include publishers and societies to the list of organisations which need to implement their data policy.
The success of any data archiving effort of course depends on the motivation of researchers to provide their primary data on which published results are based. This motivation could be strengthened by a clear data policy of the publishers which should include the obligation of researchers to archive this primary data in an appropriate data center.
I would therefore like to see a stronger statement of AGU which publishes a considerable amount of journals on this topic. In other words, AGU should consider its own responsibiliy and its potential to act as exemplar when calling for data policies.
May 15th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Dear Panel Members,
In the modern world of data-driven science, we believe that there is a need to emphasize data sharing as a core ethic of science and a need to develop a sustained data infrastructure supporting scientific research and applications. In that light, we urge you to consider the following points:
- Data must be freely and openly accessible, and should be made available as soon as practicable. Research results should not be published unless the associated data are readily available, ideally as part of the paper itself. This is an area where AGU, as a publisher, can show leadership in both policy and technology.
- Free and open access should explicitly recognize the need for equitable access to research communities across the globe. This could impact where data are stored, in what form, and the technologies used to serve those data.
- When data are used in a publication they should be formally cited, crediting both the data author (provider) and the data publisher. If data cannot be cited and accessed, the result should not be publishable in the scientific literature. This would require some modification of AGU’s current data citation policy (http://www.agu.org/pubs/data_policy.html). Further methods need to be developed and employed to ensure consistent and continual data reference and access.
- Data quality is increasingly important, especially in interdisciplinary research. Data providers cannot anticipate every use of their data and cannot be solely responsible for data quality. On the other hand data users cannot always be expected to fully determine the quality of data outside their field. The diverse data applications in interdisciplinary science demand greater levels of data description, characterization of uncertainty, and understanding of provider assumptions and metaphors. Formal robust semantic procedures may be helpful. New data verification methods, including the peer review of data should be explored.
- In developing the data infrastructure of the future, we will increasingly rely on robust and open standards. Specific standards should not be prescribed, but we encourage the use of relevant standards in preserving, managing and exchanging data and metadata.
- Finally, we must look to the past as well as the future. It is not enough to ensure that data being produced today are archived and available. There is also a need to identify, prioritize, prepare, and preserve historical data at risk.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment,
Mark A Parsons, on behalf of the AGU Information Technology Committee.