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,
I would like to comment on a few points concerning the interim report as 
I cannot be in Uppsala tomorrow.

Generally I think the report is very valuable because it
a) formulates the problems with the current practise while at the same 
time it gives the very good reasons for chosing and maybe continuing 
this practise,
b) it reviews what people do in various large collaborations,
c) and it contains some suggestions of how to change things.

As we are well aware of, the last point is the most difficult and I 
don't think we have a satisfactory new solution which outweights the 
reasons that have made all the LHC collaborations chose to continue the 
current practise.

So I would prefer that we in the conclusions mention again the LHC 
experiments approach continuing the current practise, while they also 
"add" and encourage physics notes (as mentioned on top of page 8) with 
the hope that this can address some of the problems with the current 
practise. As times moves on the BELLE concept (which I like) could help 
in some aspects, while more dramatic departures seems much  more 
problematic (to me) in the near future.

I think the motivation and wish to change things in the future will 
depend on how well the chosen LHC approach will work to get papers 
published in an efficient manner, and in particular the number of and 
experience with physics notes.

At this point this is the only significant comment I can think of.

Several of points brought up by Max I also agree with and I think he has 
made a good job extracting the point where we should consider changes in 
the report.

Best wishes and my apologies for missing the meeting,
                                                   Steinar

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
>
>  
>