Message: Re: Working Group on Authorship: Interim Report Not Logged In (login)
 Next-in-Thread Next-in-Thread
 Next-in-Forum Next-in-Forum

None Re: Working Group on Authorship: Interim Report 

Forum: C11 Authorship
Re: None Working Group on Authorship: Interim Report (Vera Luth)
Date: 30 Jun, 2005
From: Dmitri Denisov <Dmitri Denisov>

Dear Vera, WG members!

Please, find below my comments on the interim report which was sent to C11:

1. I share all points expressed in Max's mail with comments dated June 27, 
2005.

2. p.3
a) first sentence of last paragraph states that large HEP 
Collaborations have 200-600 members. Arn't we counting CMS and ATLAS as 
HEP collaborations?

3. p.6
a) it looks for me as too strong statement that first Belle's author 
been "recognized by physical society" is hard to check. At D0 there are 
mutliple authors, with their first letter far from "A", who have been well 
recognized by professional societies, funding agencies, etc.

4. p.7
a) In the last paragraph we write about "publishers planning to print only 
a few names in the future". Do we have written statement from publishers 
on this subject?

5. p.8
a) when describing effect of Belle practices we assumed that most of them 
(like substantial reduction in number of authors) will be applicable for 
other HEP collaborations. As we have example of single collaboration with 
large number of collaborators from single country with it's own customs I 
suggest to be careful in extrapolation of Belle observations to other 
Collaborations.
b) Last sentence of the paragraph before last about "steady decline in 
number of Belle authors is due to increased responsibility" is very hard 
to check. Could it be related to some members of Collaboration loosing 
ineterst in the Collaboration activities?

6. p.9
a) first paragraph - where we got information that Belle Collaboration 
members "are very satisfied" with their system? 
b) third paragraph. Estimate that 200f HEP collaboration efforts are 
devoted to "service" tasks is not applicable to all Collaborations (and 
Max already refered to this). The D0 Collaboration is spending well over 
50f manpower on upgrades (for higher Tevatron luminosity), data taking, 
software developments, data handling and other "service" tasks.
c) paragraph 5. I feel uneasy about mentioning SLAC discovery and not 
mentioning BNL discovery. We could and should be symmetric touchning 
sensitive issues in HEP history, especially as we have representative from 
SLAC on the WG team. Why not to add description of Ting's authors team and 
rules?

7. p.15
a) paragraph about "Publishers may in the future..." should go after Q2.

8. p.16
a) I suggest we devide Q5 into two parts as effect of reduction of 
publication for funding agencies and home institutions might be different.

In my view interim report is a reasonable compromize between different 
opinions existing in the WG.

Form those at Lepton/Photon - enjoy Sweden!
Dmitri.

 Add Message Add Message
to: "Re: Working Group on Authorship: Interim Report"

 Subscribe Subscribe

This site runs SLAC HyperNews version 1.11-slac-91, derived from the original HyperNews


[ SLACsite Home | SLACsite discussions | Search | Feedback ]