A publication is an important narrative of the work done and interpretations made by researchers securing a scientific discovery. As The Royal Society neatly states though, "Nullius in verba" ("Take nobody's word for it"), whereby the role of the underpinning data is paramount. Therefore, the objectivity that preserving that data within the article provides is due to readers being able to check the calculation decisions of the authors. But how to achieve full data archiving? This is the raw data archiving challenge, in size and need for correct metadata. Processed diffraction data and final derived molecular coordinates archiving in crystallography have achieved an exemplary state of the art relative to most fields. One can credit IUCr with developing exemplary peer review procedures, of narrative, underpinning structure factors and coordinate data and validation report, through its checkcif development and submission system introduced for Acta Cryst. C and subsequently developed for its other chemistry journals. The crystallographic databases likewise have achieved amazing success and sustainability these last 50 years or so. The wider science data scene is celebrating the FAIR data accord, namely, that data be Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable [Wilkinson et al., "Comment: The FAIR guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship," Sci. Data 3, 160018 (2016)]. Some social scientists also emphasize more than FAIR being needed, the data should be "FACT," which is an acronym meaning Fair, Accurate, Confidential, and Transparent [van der Aalst et al., "Responsible data science," Bus Inf. Syst. Eng. 59(5), 311-313 (2017)], this being the issue of ensuring reproducibility not just reusability. (Confidentiality of data not likely being relevant to our data obviously.) Acta Cryst. B, C, E, and IUCrData are the closest I know to being both FACT and FAIR where I repeat for due emphasis: the narrative, the automatic "general" validation checks, and the underpinning data are checked thoroughly by subject specialists (i.e., the specialist referees). IUCr Journals are also the best that I know of for encouraging and then expediting the citation of the DOI for a raw diffraction dataset in a publication; examples can be found in IUCrJ, Acta Cryst D, and Acta Cryst F. The wish for a checkcif for raw diffraction data has been championed by the IUCr Diffraction Data Deposition Working Group and its successor, the IUCr Committee on Data.

中文翻译：

---

大数据的事实与公平使科学具有客观性：晶体学的观点。

出版物是对确保科学发现的研究人员所做的工作和所作的解释的重要叙述。正如英国皇家学会整洁地指出的那样，“动词中的Nullius”（“不言而喻”）在其中，基础数据的作用至关重要。因此，保留文章中数据的客观性是由于读者能够检查作者的计算决策。但是如何实现完整的数据归档？这是原始数据归档的挑战，其大小以及对正确元数据的需求。相对于大多数领域，在晶体学中处理的衍射数据和最终导出的分子坐标存档已实现了示例性的现有技术。人们可以将IUCr归功于开发示例性的同行评议程序，包括叙述性，通过针对Acta Cryst引入的checkcif开发和提交系统，支持结构因素并协调数据和验证报告。C并随后为其其他化学期刊开发。在过去的50年左右的时间里，晶体学数据库同样取得了惊人的成功和可持续性。更广泛的科学数据领域正在庆祝FAIR数据协议的达成，即数据具有可查找性，可访问性，互操作性和可重用性[Wilkinson等人，“评论：科学数据管理和管理的FAIR指导原则”，Sci。数据3，160018（2016）]。一些社会科学家还强调，除了需要FAIR之外，数据还应该是“ FACT”，这是一个首字母缩写词，表示公平，准确，机密和透明[van der Aalst等人，“负责任的数据科学”，巴士资讯 Syst。。59（5），311-313（2017）]，这是确保可重现性而不仅仅是可重用性的问题。（数据的机密性显然与我们的数据不太可能相关。）Acta Cryst。B，C，E和IUCrData是我所知道的与FACT和FAIR最为接近的地方，我在此重复强调一下：叙述，自动的“一般”验证检查以及基础数据均由主题专家进行了彻底检查（即，专业裁判）。IUCr期刊也是我所知的最好的期刊，可以鼓励并加快对出版物中原始衍射数据集的DOI的引用。可以在IUCrJ，Acta Cryst D和Acta Cryst F中找到示例。IUCr衍射数据沉积工作组及其后继者提倡对原始衍射数据进行校验的愿望，