Pub and Speakers WG minutes 16 Nov 2017

From CMB-S4 wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Attending: Charles Lawrence, Jo Dunkley, Toki Suzuki, Tom Crawford, Darcy Barron, Eric Linder, Jim Bartlett, Nathan Whitehorn, Clarence Chang, Elena Piepaoli, Kevin Huffenberger (recording).


FOR ALL: Read policies of other groups. Build table for how publications and talks are handled. i.e. how did they handle the controversial issues.

FOR NATHAN/KEVIN: set up fillable table on the wiki

Next meeting during the week of 27 Nov - 1 Dec


Need to submit to ICCC by Dec 15 a document of possibilities for publication bylaws. Approval of bylaws in March meeting. Need speakers bureau sooner.

Nathan presented some kickoff slides introducing the Publications & Talks committee goals

  • Big question: How do we allocate credit fairly and in a way that encourages and incentivizes work?
  • Inevitable deficiencies in Publications policy can be addressed in Talks policy and vice versa.
  • Expectations are different for physics and astro communities
  • Eric: APS & AAS principal of ethics may imply opt-in of some type is necessary. Nathan: agreeing to a collaboration membership policy may address this point, as long as there is a mechanism for opting out.
  • Author list approach could vary with the category of publications, different tiers for e.g. conference proceeding or science vs technical.

Some big picture questions need to be put to the ICCC or the whole collaboration. Controversial issues:

  • Author tiers vs alphabetical

Non-controversial issues:

  • Possibility to opt-out

What characteristics determine division of papers into categories?

  • Science vs technical (Same as universe vs terrestrial?). Methods separate?
  • Journal vs proceeding

Instrumentalist point of view

  • Don't want to be left behind
  • Builders are naturally 1st tier instrument paper, sizeable asymmetry between the number of science results vs instrument papers
  • Data pipeline contributors have the same problem, but lack external forum, i.e. don't have SPIE.
  • Contributions in the past tend to be forgotten. Planck had a integrated work threshold for opt-in authorship

Order of author list can be hard to interpret from outside the collaboration.

Who makes the decision about what topics are general papers vs specialized papers. (Make sure that somebody is responsible.)

  • Planck: collaboration/working groups proposed papers, synthesized by editorial board, final decision by the science team.

Building sets of collaboration-wide simulations and forecasting tools, how is credit being given for these?