RE: Working Group on Authorship:

Help: Forums, postings and threads

Forums, postings and threads

Click on the Forum title, e.g. on the "Forums by Category" page, to read a sequence of postings to the Forum and its threads all in one page. If you are only interested in one thread or the thread following a specific posting, click the thread or the posting, which takes you to a smaller page, which contains only the part you are interested in and may be easier to navigate.

Layout of the posting thread(s)

The posting threads can be shown with/without the text of the postings ("Inline depth"). In addition the depth of the thread can be controlled ("Outline depth"). For both cases several values are provided, which can be toggled. Note that the displayed values are those, which can be chosen, they do not correspond to the actual display status of the thread(s).

Add message

Add a new posting thread to this Forum

Show subscribers

Click "Show subscribers" to get the List of all subscribers, who receive e-mail from postings to this Forum, if they have not explictly unsubscribed from a posting thread. This includes:

Subscribers to the forum
Explicit subscribers to the posting or any of its ancestors
The author of the posting (if he has not unsubscribed)
The authors of any ancestor posting (if they have not unsubscribed)

Some browsers display old pages from the cache

Some browsers (e.g. Firefox) display a page from the cache even though the page has been updated. As a result, one may not get the latest messages in the forum's outline or the logon ID of the previous session appears on the upper right corner. If one suspects that he or she does not get the latest content of a page, try clearing up the personal data from the browser's cache as the following:

Tools -> Clear Private Data -> Clear Private Data (from browser Firefox)

Tools -> Delete Private Data (from browser Opera)

then reflesh the current page to get the latest content.

Details on "Inline depth" and "Outline depth"

Threads and the follow-up messages are numbered. There is one line per posting, normally starting with the posting number. The URLs of a posting and its responses reflect the depth of the follow-up postings. Watch the URLs to see how this is done. Depending on the chosen display options, the thread-display may be incomplete; the number of messages at the next level is, however, displayed, e.g. "…3 message(s)". You may not see all contributors unless you choose "All".

Messages are "chained" if there are only replies at the first level, i.e. 1/1.html, 1/1/1.html etc. In case of "chained" messages the message number is replaced by the icon and there is no indentation.

Inline: Display the subject line only or also the text of the posting(s); for the choice "All" the "Outline" choices are switched off.

Argument Default value Alternative Comment

1 0 1 no text / full text of posting

2 1 All text for level 1 only / text for All postings

Argument	Default value	Alternative		Comment
1	0	1		no text / full text of posting
2	1	All		text for level 1 only / text for All postings

Outline: Choose the depth of the posting thread, successive toggle controls provide increasing detail.

Argument Default value Alternative Comment

1 2 1 2 levels / 1 level (original posting)

2 3 2 3 levels / 2 levels

3 3 All 3 levels / all levels (all postings)

Argument	Default value	Alternative	Comment
1	2	1	2 levels / 1 level (original posting)
2	3	2	3 levels / 2 levels
3	3	All	3 levels / all levels (all postings)

Dear Colleagues,
 
I have heard only from a few of you in speonse to the message below.
Nevertheless, I have asked Pippa to assist me in setting up a conference for Friday,
June 3rd at 15:00 Geneva  time.  Pippa will announce the venue of the meeting at CERN and also
the phone number to call.
(sorry Lorenzo, I know that you will not be able to attend) 
 
The purpose of the meeting will be to discuss
   - everybody's assessment of the draft summary
      please send your comment in the next few dsays so everybody can read it in advance
      and be prepared to make a statement at the meeting
   - the draft questionnaire  and suggestions of how to proceed
     likewise send your critique now
   - the next steps for this group
 
So, pleaase let Pippa and me know if you are not able to attend thsi phone meeting.
 
Also, let me know if you are planning to attend LP05 in Uppsala,
I have made arrangements for a lunch meeting on the first day
of the confernece, June 30th.
 
Hope to hear from you ,all
Vera
 

________________________________

From: Luth, Vera G.
Sent: Sun 4/24/2005 2:44 PM
To: c11authorship-ss
Cc: 'Lorenzo.Foa@cern.ch'; 'aihara@hep.phys.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp'; 'klein@ifh.de'; 'hans-ake.gustafsson@kosufy.lu.se'; 'denisovd@fnal.gov'; 'Pippa.Wells@cern.ch'; 'danielw@fnal.gov'; 'jack.sandweiss@yale.edu'; 'steinar.stapnes@fys.uio.no'; 'taku@hep.sci.osaka-u.ac.jp'; 'herten@uni-freiburg.de'; 'Michal.turala@cern.ch'; Chauveau, Jacques
Subject: Working Group on Authorship:



Dear Colleagues,

Thanks for response (at least from some of you) to the draft summary of
our deliberations.  The most detailed and critical response came from Max, and I have incorporated some of his comments and suggestions in the draft
which is attached.
Max's note questions the usefulness of including the proposal of relating authorship to analysis working groups and the idea of encouraging scientists working on the detector and support  to join these groups so they can contribute more directly to the physics results.

I append Max's final statement (please read the rest also) and my response.
Clearly, this and other parts of the summary report need to be discussed in more detail with all of you.         Remember,  at this stage, the document is a discussion paper, not a recommendation.

My question is:  what next?

We should probably have another meeting, preferentially in person with many of you before I can finalize the draft document with your various suggestions and then send it to C11 members for consultation.

C11 meets at Uppsala on July 1st. If many of you will attend LP05 we could try and meet in Uppsala the day before. 
At the last day of the conference I also usually give a brief plenary talk
on C11 and IUPAP activities.  I was planning to discuss the WG report and announce the questionnaire, provided I get the consensus from you and C11 to do so.

I would also like some advice from you on how we approach the collaborations through you or through the spokespersons. 

I will be visiting CERN on May 31 - June 3rd.  The best time to have a meeting is probably Friday, June 3rd in the afternoon.  We could try and get others on the phone (though we may miss Japan because of the time difference)

I would still like to hear from all of you before by May 6th, by e-mail and
on the phone. 

The topics I need input on are:
   - inclusion of consortia as proposal in the report
   - any other critique, comments, additions, ...
   - do you try to proceed with the questionnaire?
   - if yes, how do we submit it to the community? when?

Please let me know how I can best get you on the phone,
I'll be relatively free in the next two weeks, i.e. until May 6th.

Looking forward to hearing from you,
please post on the hypernews so everybody can follow the discussion.

Ciao
Vera


========================================================================
Max's statement: 
ATLAS and CMS can in no way be split now since they all work for discovering Higgs and SUSY, i.e. if one was working in a QCD group and was told one can only sign papers on pt spectra, for example, who would continue to work and
agree to not sign the discovery paper, and who is important, the guy
who saw the mass peak first or the one who has aligned a muon detector?
There is the danger to be less efficient: being a member of a specific
consortium I may overlook some work of others which may be of
use for my own analysis. A collaboration has certain standards which
are maintained by the current procedure. Being in group A and not
agreeing with a result of group B leaves someone, in the proposed scheme,
with no influence to oppose an analysis because one is not supposed to
sign the paper of B anyhow. In other words I see no real advantage but
too many counterarguments.


Vera's Response:
For ATLAS and CMS the common goal is to understand electro-weak symmetry breaking. If scientists were to focus on different scenarios, like SUSY and Higgs, and one would turn out to be correct, would the rest of the collaboration not share in the accomplishment of the lucky subgroup?  But is that any different from choosing to work on a different experiment which in the past we had to do.  Some experiments set limits other made measurements, a few made discoveries.
In many ways, the LHC effort is a worldwide effort in which a very large fraction of our community is participating, not just the official members of the collaborations.  Shouldn't this mean that we all will share the excitement of the results from these experiments.  It is hard to conceive that everybody should be referenced as an author of this or that discovery.