Re: Working Group on Authorship: Interim Report

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 Vera

  thank you very much for the comprehensive description of the problems
and ideas! For the discussion and possible further distribution of the
report I still have some  suggestions (I missed a draft version which
was likely my fault) listed below

    best regards to all, Max



p7 last item, last sentence: I would remove 'as it maximises the
    number of published papers for all members of a collaboration'
    because the reasons for current practice are different from
    what this sentence suggests as the goal.

p7 last part: i think the problem which publishers have with large
    author lists needs to be solved by them in a clear way and can
    be and thus should not in any way influence our discussion.
    it is a problem, but it is of technical nature while
    we discuss a legitimation/physics problem. i would thus
    remove all relation to that, it is a footnote rather than
    part of the discussion I think.

p10 3rd $  It is important, at least for me, that it is clear
     that our WG is NOT proposing the consortia idea which at
     least I cannot defend. The way you presented that is still
     fine and balanced.

     I yet would like to suggest a change on the first line
     'There is serious concern' ADD 'also inside the WG'

     and I would appreciate a clear statement also in the
     questionnaire that we do not ask for support of a proposal
     but are interested in the response to an idea.

p11 2nd line I would remove 'thus' as this suggests that our
     colleagues didnt think much about the publication practice

     3rd line you say
     'very few particle physicists have given much thought'
     yet, as is also mentioned in the text, all the LHC collaborations
     have agreed to the current practice, which involved several 1000
     scientists. one may reformulate this sentence saying sth like
     'With the further increase of the number of authors from
     a few 100 to a few 1000 the current authorship practice
     may be rediscussed/visited'.


questionnnaire: p17: at HERA we are in the 15th year and are still
                      refining calibration procedures and rewrite
                      parts of the common software. To suggest that
                      this can be accomplished in 1-2 years will
                      give rise to questions. perhaps one talks
                      about an initial phase (others may be faster
                      than H1, the reason of course is upgrades,
                      increased statistics/precision aims,
                      soft- and hardware computing developments and new
                      ideas.)


On Sun, 26 Jun 2005, Luth, Vera G. wrote:

> Dear Colleagues,
>
> After a few minor corrections to the interim report I have sent it to the members of C11
>
> for their evaluation and the discussion during the upcoming annual meeting in Uppsala.
>
> I hope that Gregor, Steinar, and Taku will participate in this discussion, and I will report
>
> back to you on the reception of the report and the decision on how to proceed.
>
> I expect I will be contacting you again for further input, especially if we decide to go
>
> forward with the questionnaire.
>
> Thanks you very much for your participation in this discussion, I think
>
> we all learned something in this process, and may be there will be some consequences
>
> through the evaluation by the community.
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Have a great summer,
>
> Vera
>
>
>
>