1 ATLAS Publications Policy Stephen Haywood ATLAS Plenary – 27 February 2004

1

ATLAS Publications

Policy

Stephen Haywood

ATLAS Plenary – 27 February 2004

ATLAS Publications Policy Stephen Haywood – 27 Feb 2004 2

ATLAS Publications Committee (PubComm)

2002-2004

Stephen Haywood (Chair) Alain Blondel Lutz Kopke Michel Lefebvre Heinz Pernegger Marc Virchaux

With help from:

Peter Jenni, Ken Smith Fabiola Gianotti

2003-2005

Pippa Wells (Chair designate) Shoji Asai Eilam Gross Sten Hellman John Huth Maria Smizanska

Torsten Akesson Siggi Bethke Giacomo Polesello


Outline for this Presentation

Purpose of Document Structure of Document Authorship Issues Other Forms of ATLAS Papers and Notes

Discussion Authorship Other Issues


Purpose of Document

Emphasis on General Publications of complete Collaboration during Data-taking.

Important, even now, to consider the requirements for people to be ATLAS Authors so that people who would like the chance to be authors of first ATLAS publications understand what will be asked of them.

Particularly relevant to Physicists working at Tevatron.

Focus on Authorship. Helpful to understand how other aspects fit together:

Refereeing & Approval of Papers Doesn’t need to be finalised now. May wish to “prototype” with Scientific Notes

Other Forms of ATLAS Papers and Notes Doesn’t need to be finalised now, but helpful to start to clarify.


Structure of Document

Overview Authors of ATLAS Papers Refereeing & Approval Procedures Style of ATLAS Papers Other Forms of ATLAS Papers and Notes

Had wanted Document to be simple … but …


Authorship – Qualification

ATLAS Member for at least 1 year Not author of another major LHC collaboration at time of

qualification ≥ 80 working days and ≥ 50% of research time doing ATLAS

Technical Work (see later) – may be accumulated over more than one year

Is this high enough?

Should it be possible to accumulate Technical Work over more than one year?

No restrictions on Tevatron physicists.

Consider: Professor with departmental role and lot of teaching Postdoc with no other commitments


Authorship – Continuation

ATLAS Member ≥ 50% of research time on ATLAS Not an author of another major LHC collaboration ≥ 25 days [1] doing ATLAS Technical Work in past year [2]

[2] Could be averaged over 2 years (excluding qualification period) – potential issue for PhD student writing thesis.

[1] Technical Work is essential for operation of ATLAS. More than 25 days per person is likely to be needed. However, anticipate that work would be allocated by Institute, allowing Team Leader to balance distribution. This could lead to a reduction in the personal contribution.


Technical Work

Design, installation, commissioning, upgrades Running, servicing, maintaining the detector Test-beam On-line & Off-line Software: general code development Running & overseeing software: MC or data processing Shifts or on-call Managerial & administrative tasks for ATLAS, including ATLAS

Committees and Physics Conveners Managing an ATLAS group in an institute

Not: Physics analysis Contributing to physics papers or physics meetings Supervising others doing physics, except as a Convener


Authorship – Former Members

Very long construction time before Data-taking (DT).Give credit to those who have worked on ATLAS before DT.

On leaving ATLAS, Author is retained on Author List for 1 year Qualification process starts when person becomes ATLAS

Member, but not before 1 Jan 2000 For every year between Qualification and DT (first physics

paper?), accumulate 0.25 additional years of Authorship Additional credit cannot be used beyond 4 years after first

physics paper

Try to be:Well-defined, without “discontinuities”, fair and simple.

What about effort pre-2000? For example PhD Students?


An example of Pre-Data Credit

2011

2010

2009

2008

20

07

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

A

B

C

D

E

F

G


Authorship Committee (AC)

3 people selected from PubComm by Spokesperson, one designated Chairperson

Each will serve 3 years

Role: Chairperson will receive requests for new Authors and will

make recommendations to Spokesperson At the start of each year, Committee will consider:

Authorship Policy and its implementation Continuing Authorship of all current ATLAS Authors – receiving

from Team Leaders list of Authors and Technical Work undertaken

Normally communications should be between ATLAS Team Leaders and AC Chairperson. As last resort, anyone may appeal to Spokesperson, whose decision is final.


Authorship – Standard List

Maintained by Authorship Committee Visible on the Web Updated whenever someone qualifies Continuation of Authors checked every year Snapshots taken for individual papers

Good to have rules to reduce ambiguity.

Inevitably flexibility will be required.

For given paper, provision to include: ATLAS Member who has not yet qualified as Author. Visitor or non-ATLAS Theorist. Engineers etc. for relevant papers.


Authorship of Papers

Who should appear in list on given paper ?

a) Only ATLAS Authors who “contributed to work”

b) All ATLAS Authors on Standard list, with “contributors” listed first

c) All ATLAS Authors on Standard List

Desirable to give credit to those who have done the work (affects job searches & promotion) … but where do you place cut off ? Who has “contributed” ?

ECFA/EPS propose credit can be given through Scientific Notes.

May also be desirable to identify “corresponding” authors.

Comments so far: Strong preference for (c), with concern that others would be very bad for collaboration and morale.


Authorship of Papers

Unlikely paper journals will want list of 2000 names, although may publish electronically.

Perhaps for full list, would create a web page.

How should list be ordered ?a) Alphabetically by Authors’ surnamesb) Alphabetically by Institute, and then by Authors’ surnames

within Institute list

Would need to discuss with journals. Undoubtedly printed lists could be obtained if needed.

Comments so far: No strong preferences.

Active signing of papers – perhaps not at beginning, but maybe later ?


Project Papers

Associated with work of Sub-system (including Computing) Encourage to follow approach of General Publications Allow community some flexibility as to how to proceed

Primarily detector papers Author list to be determined by Project Leader

Restricted authorship: well-defined ATLAS community Can include non-ATLAS Authors


ATLAS Notes

At present: Anyone may submit an ATLAS “Communication” (COM) May request approval by Project Leader – drops “COM” and

becomes public

Propose to have: Approved Notes (APP) – but not public

Work is endorsed. Publicly available notes which have been approved (PUB)

Work is endorsed, not “secret” and presentation quality is sufficiently high that can be made public.

Only PUB notes may be referenced in papers.


Scientific Notes

Reporting self-contained piece of work of publication quality which is not appropriate for publication by Collaboration or sub-system

Authorship by individuals or small groups, can include non-ATLAS members

Pre-DT: Prospects for future ATLAS analysis New software techniques or algorithms for ATLAS Well contained work on limited part of an ATLAS sub-system

Post-DT As above. Back-up to General papers – giving credit for individuals


Conference Proceedings

Currently somewhat haphazard. Scientific Notes – for LHC Symposium ATLAS Notes – in some cases Direct to Proceedings Editors

Would make sense to prepare ATLAS Note which is circulated in corresponding community and approved by Project Leader etc.

Needs more thought for future – including Speakers Committee

Approval could be As for Scientific Notes Something lighter within the corresponding community


Non-ATLAS Publications

Encourage ATLAS Members to Write review articles Publish more general papers on methods and phenomenology Collaborate with non-ATLAS Theorists Participate in Workshops

ATLAS welcomes papers published through standard ATLAS channels; but sometimes this is not desirable for authors.

Distinguish work:

A. Not needing to be subjected to ATLAS control

B. Having some small ATLAS input

C. Being manifestly ATLAS’s responsibility


Non-ATLAS Publications - Criteria

A. Not needing to be subjected to ATLAS control Could have been done by anyone using ATLAS published info No ATLAS oversight required. Correctly reference ATLAS.

B. Having some small ATLAS input Simple or superficial use of ATLAS S/w, e.g. ATLFAST/Athena ATLAS provides illustration of general techniqueApproved ATLAS Note. No further oversight. Acknowledge ATLAS.

C. Being manifestly ATLAS’s responsibility Uses unpublished ATLAS results or part of on-going analysis Consideration of ATLAS potential Non-trivial use of ATLAS S/w Work done in ATLAS context For a talk, speaker was invited as member of ATLAS Collab Normal ATLAS Publication.


DISCUSSION: Authorship – Technical Work

Technical Work is essential for operation of ATLAS. More than 25 days per person is likely to be needed. However, anticipate that work would be allocated by Institute, allowing Team Leader to balance distribution.

Design, installation, commissioning, upgrades. Running, servicing, maintaining the detector. Test-beam. On-line & Off-line Software: general code development. Running & overseeing software: MC or data processing. Shifts or on-call. Managerial & administrative tasks for ATLAS, including ATLAS

Committees and Physics Conveners Managing an ATLAS group in an institute.

Not: Physics analysis. Contributing to physics papers or physics meetings. Supervising others doing physics, except as a Convener


DISCUSSION : Authorship – Qualification & Continuation

Qualification: ATLAS Member for at least 1 year Not author of another major LHC collaboration at time of qualification ≥ 80 working days and ≥ 50% of research time doing ATLAS Technical

Work (see later) – may be accumulated over more than one year

Is this high enough? No restrictions on Tevatron physicists.Should it be possible to accumulate Technical Work over more than one

year?Consider:

Professor with departmental role and lot of teaching Postdoc with no other commitments

Continuation: ATLAS Member ≥ 50% of research time on ATLAS Not an author of another major LHC collaboration ≥ 25 days [1] doing ATLAS Technical Work in past year [2]


DISCUSSION: Authorship – Former Members

Very long construction time before Data-taking (DT).Give credit to those who have worked on ATLAS before DT.

On leaving ATLAS, Author is retained on Author List for 1 year Qualification process starts when person becomes ATLAS

Member, but not before 1 Jan 2000 For every year between Qualification and DT (first physics

paper?), accumulate 0.25 additional years of Authorship Additional credit cannot be used beyond 4 years after first

physics paper

Try to be:Well-defined, without “discontinuities”, fair and simple.

What about effort pre-2000? For example PhD Students?


DISCUSSION: Authorship of Papers

Who should appear in list on given paper ?

a) Only ATLAS Authors who “contributed to work”b) All ATLAS Authors on Standard list, with “contributors” listed firstc) All ATLAS Authors on Standard List

Desirable to give credit to those who have done the work (affects job searches & promotion) … but where do you place cut off ? Who has “contributed” ?

ECFA/EPS propose credit can be given through Scientific Notes.May also be desirable to identify “corresponding” authors.

How should list be ordered ?a) Alphabetically by Authors’ surnamesb) Alphabetically by Institute, and then by Authors names within Institute

list

Active signing of papers – perhaps not at beginning, but maybe later ?


DISCUSSION: Other Issues

Other Forms of ATLAS Papers and Notes Project Papers ATLAS Notes Scientific Notes Conference Proceedings Non-ATLAS Publications

Refereeing & Approval Procedures

AOB ?

Documents

1 ATLAS Publications Policy Stephen Haywood ATLAS Plenary – 27 February 2004