Re: Report on Authorship, - one more question

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 talked to Pippa about answering the question below but I don't know if 
she manages before taking a two week break these days.
She was virtually on her way out of her office when we exchanged mails.

Since the LHC experiments are not yet in data-taking mode maybe the best 
description of the idea is what was written in the EPS report from 2000:
ECFA-EPS COMMITTEE'S POSITION PAPER:

New class of Publications to recognize individual contributions to 
future large experiments (*)

The career advancement of Experimental High Energy Physicists at 
Universities and Research Institutes has become harder in the last ten 
years due to the large number of authors appearing on each publication 
within the field. This large number of authors makes it harder to 
evaluate the individual contribution when comparing with other fields in 
science.

Collaborations associated with forthcoming LHC experiments are typically 
several times larger than existing experiments. Thus, if no action is 
taken, the problem of recognizing individual contributions to 
experiments will become even more acute.

It is understood that the LHC experiments presently expect that all 
scientific results using data from these experiments will be published 
in the name of the full collaboration running the experiment.

The following proposal attempts to address the above issues, while 
providing a way for fair recognition to the individuals. It is intended 
to provide a concrete procedure for the period before data taking and 
outlines the way to be followed thereafter.

1) The editors of scientific journals will be contacted to establish a 
new class of publications under the name of technical or scientific 
notes. These notes will contain results of analyses, detector 
development and improvements, detector and physics simulations, 
software, algorithms and data handling. The results presented in these 
notes will be part of the official results of the experiment and should 
be quoted, whenever relevant, in official communications or publications 
of the full collaboration. It is intended that such notes should 
describe a unique result or methodology as accepted by the 
collaboration, and be of interest to a wider scientific community. It is 
intended that these notes be of sufficiently high quality that they 
count as valid publications, credited to the named authors. In this 
spirit, the following requirements are proposed:

i) They will be published in the name of the direct authors of the work.
ii) They will need to be approved and submitted by the collaboration
iii) They will have to pass a review procedure that will not only 
involve members of the experiment but also external reviewers.
iv) They will be part of the public domain. Most preferable, they should 
also appear in the electronic media (WWW).

2) Publications of the full collaboration will normally include the name 
of the collaboration and the list of participating institutions with a 
secure reference to the electronic media and in print to the author list 
(for printed journals, a full author list should appear periodically). 
This will eliminate the need of printing many pages of names in each 
publication, while giving recognition to the institutes involved.

3) Publications of the full collaborations and conference presentations 
given in the name of the collaborations will refer, as much as possible, 
to the published technical notes. This will make the publications easier 
to read and will give the proper credit to the technical notes (which 
contain the names of the direct contributors).

4) Publications of the full collaboration are deemed to include:

i) Articles of the full collaboration in refereed journals. ii) 
Proposals and reports submitted to official bodies in the name of the 
collaboration. iii) Articles of a very large subgroup (like a subsystem) 
of the collaboration in official journals.

(*) [The title has been changed from ".. contributions in LHC 
experiments" to ".. contributions to future large experiments", as 
suggested by ECFA in September 1999]

I think myself that this could work (as Scientific Notes now are being 
published), see forexample: 
http://www.springeronline.com/sgw/cda/frontpage/0,11855,5-40213-12-105188-0,00.html

Best regards, Steinar

Vera Luth wrote:

>*** Discussion title: 
>Dear Colleagues,
>
>I finally have found a little time to get back to the authorship report.
>I have reread many of the comments posted in the hypernews and have
>tried to implement them.
>Thanks you all very much for this input. The trouble is, the integration
>of various suggestions does not make the report shorter!
>
>There has been a suggetion to split the report in two, one for particle
>physics, the other for the science community at large. I am afrid i have
>not followed up on that. The current report is pretty much addressed to
>the particle physics community, but also useful for other physicists.
>
>One question I had all along which is the proposal by the LHC
>collaborations to publish Physics Notes. What do you really mean by
>this?
>Are these papers that give the details of the analysis on published in
>Physical Review or Nuclear Physics? So the same group would first
>prepare the brief letter for the first publication which everybody signs
>and would then also write the longer detailed paper which only the few
>analysts sign? So the whole collaboration receives credit for the result
>and the analyst get credit for the detailed paper?
>Is this would you have in mind?
>
>In BABAR the "Physics Notes" are 50 - 300 pages long, with details not
>suitable for publication. I would think one would need to trim these
>notes substantially for publication.
>
>What do you plan to do with several groups working in the same topic
>independently, writing independent physics notes to describe the
>analysis? How would you deal with the short letter and then the longer
>paper?
>
>A clarification would help me to give these physics notes the proper
>emphasis in the report. I am hoping to finish the report next week and
>will then circulate it once more to the working group.
>
>best regards,
>Vera
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------
>Visit this SLACSite at hypernews.slac.stanford.edu message (to reply or unsubscribe) at: 
>http://hypernews.slac.stanford.edu:5090/HyperNews/slacsite/get/C11Authorship/44.html
>
>  
>