Publication and Speakers Working Group

From CMB-S4 wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Useful links

Speakers bureau talks list

Telecons

Next telecon Thursday 22 February, 1pm EST / noon CST / 10am PST.

Connection details:

https://uberconference.com/cmbs4a
1-866-578-4799
1-480-999-2448


Kickoff slides: [1]

Initial report to the ICCC, 15 Dec 2017; Google Doc for feedback

Second draft of policy, submitted to ICCC 31 Jan 2018.

Current draft in the S4 Governance github. Recent version (sec 13) 19 Feb 2018


Minutes

Pub and Speakers WG minutes 21 Dec 2017

Pub and Speakers WG met on 14 Dec 2017, but all the editing was in the google doc

Pub and Speakers WG minutes 7 Dec 2017

Pub and Speakers WG minutes 28 Nov 2017

Pub and Speakers WG minutes 16 Nov 2017


Charge from ICCC

The Publications Policy and Interim Speakers' Bureau WG is to draft the CMB-S4 collaboration bylaws that pertain to the policies and procedures that govern CMB-S4 publications and the Speakers’ Bureau. Specifically, the WG is charged to:

  • Draft an interim publication policy (covering topics including, but not limited to, authorship, authorship order, mechanisms for reviewing author list, and mechanisms for reviewing papers) to begin operating right away. This policy should be concrete enough to guide decisions on actual publications in the near term but flexible enough to accommodate inevitable changes as the collaboration matures.
  • Draft a basic interim Speakers Bureau policy to begin operating right away, with a system of notifying the collaboration about opportunities to present project work, approving members to represent the project in talks, and generating a set of slides about the project that are available for any collaboration member to use.
  • Propose methods of establishing a Publications Panel and a Speakers Bureau.
  • Propose methods of insuring that the policies are followed.
  • Propose a mechanism for revising publication policy and Speaker Bureau responsibilities in the bylaws.


Example publication policies

Policy summaries
Collaboration Project proposal process Categories of Papers Authorship tiers Editorial/review process Speakers / Talks Policies Other
Planck Publication Process; Policies for "Planck Scientists"; Post-release policy; Communication policies Projects originate either with the Science Team oversight board or within science working groups and approved by the Science Team, who appoint project team members. The project team members and project leader are responsible for the writing of papers related to the project. Two major categories. 1. "General" papers, which all papers associated with data releases, "Early," and "Intermediate" papers. (These are the science results regardless of the breadth of the topic.) 2. Technical papers, conference proceedings, and public papers. All General papers have alphabetical starting with Planck collaboration. Corresponding author is listed by name, by default the project team leader, but the project team can put forward other names. All those with "Planck Scientists" status, who have reached an integrated work threshold on the project, are permitted to sign all general papers through an online process. (Planck Scientists no longer active on the project lose this ability.) Other collaboration / team members may sign only the papers that they directly worked on. Technical papers / proceedings have shorter author lists, not necessarily alphabetical. Editorial board consists of 10-15 senior scientists. Editorial board appoints review teams for each project/paper from outside the project but inside the collaboration (unless outside expertise is needed). Review team provides a written report that the project team responds to until both project and review teams are satisfied. Editorial board oversees and mediates disputes. Science team has final say on the papers readiness for submission.
ACT Publication Policy The guiding board directs core projects. Other projects originate from collaboration members, who propose to the guiding board for approval. Two major categories: 1. "Opt-out" for core science or topics that involve the bulk of the collaboration; and 2. "Opt-in" for more specialized parts of the analysis. All papers have two tiers. First a primary author or small group (up to four) of untenured contributors, followed by an alphabetical list of other collaborators. Tenured (or equivalent) contributors appear in the alphabetical list. Publications must be posted to collaboration website. All listed authors must read and review paper within two weeks. Talk materials must be approved (e.g. by consensus during a telecon). Talks must be announced and slides posted to collaboration wiki. Paper titles consistently start with "The Atacama Cosmology Telescope:"
PB Publication Policy Three categories. 1. Technical development papers; 2. Instrument, calibration, and performance papers (use data but no astrophysics or cosmology); 3. Astrophysics and Cosmology. One or two tiers, depending on paper type. Technical papers papers have a first author group followed by limited author list. Instrument papers have a first author group followed by full collaboration. The person doing most of the writing (or conference speaker) is the first author. Astrophysics and Cosmology papers have fully alphabetical author lists.
DESI Publication Policy "Key" projects originate from the spokesperson in consultation with the working group chairs and are protected from competition inside the collaboration. Other projects can originate from any collaborator, who must develop a description and proposed project leader and team through consultation with the relevant working groups. Project is proposed to the entire collaboration to identify conflicts, which are negotiated by the spokesperson(s) and the WG chairs. Publication board monitors progress of the projects, which can be suspended for inaction. Thesis projects get special consideration. Not all major results are considered key. Two categories: Key projects yield key papers, including all data release papers and general overview. Other projects yield non-Key papers. Page charges are paid by the collaboration for Key papers and by the authors for non-Key papers. Key papers are fully alphabetical, following "DESI Collaboration." Non-key papers have two tiers, first author group and then alphabetical. "Builder" status, defined by the membership committee, gives rights to request co-authorship on any DESI paper. Other collaboration members can request authorship based on significant contribution to the science analysis, with a public justification. For e.g. Data Release papers, any notable contribution, "e.g., 1 month of DESI service work," is sufficient. Lead authors or WG chairs request that the Pub board establish an internal review committee. Review committee provides feedback 2 weeks prior to collaboration-wide review (also for two weeks). Publication board calls a vote of authors, which if approved, moves the paper to a final reading by the collaboration. Consultation with WG chairs required to make sure that only public results are discussed. Press releases require approval from Project director and Spokeperson(s). Lots of contingency plans.
DES Publication Policy Projects are initiated by an announcement to the relevant working group, and then a collaboration-wide announcement. Must be done at the initiation of work or will be considered a policy violation. WG coordinators decide whether a project is "Key." DES collaborators starting an analysis of already-public DES data are not required to have their paper go through the formal review process, although the process is encouraged. Several categories specified: Scientific papers (key and non-key), simulation publications, technical publications, data release publications, conference proceedings. Alphabetical for Key science and data release papers. Two tiers for non-Key science papers, with lead authors followed by an alphabetical list of Builders who have opted in; although authors can choose to alphabetize the first tier or condense to a single alphabetical tier. Simulation and methods papers have authorship confined to direct contributors. The lead authors define the ordering. WG coordinators establish the review committee for science papers. System managers establish committee for technical papers. As analysis matures, WG coordinators must give approval for next step. Science committee can intervene if topic is high-impact. Advanced draft is posted publicly and the review committee provides feedback and concerns within two weeks, and iterates with the authors. Final version gets posted with one week notice for collaboration comment and final approval by Science committee. Management committee appoints a speakers bureau to organize overview talks and 1st public presentations of new results.
LSST Dark Energy Science Collaboration Publication Policy Projects and project teams are proposed to the relevant WG, announced to the collaboration, and logged in a database. All collaboration members are invited to participate. Thesis work get special note to avoid unnecessary duplication. Several types are mentioned explicitly: journal papers (key and standard papers), data releases, research notes, conference/seminar presentation material, conference abstracts and proceedings, astronomical circulars, theses, and software. List of key papers is designated well in advance of data release. A standard paper cannot be reclassified as a key paper without the consent of all the primary authors. Builders can join any key paper. "Full members" can join any key or standard paper to which they make significant contributions. Primary authors field authorship requests in consultation with WG conveners. Key papers have alphabetical author lists with a generic email as the corresponding author. Two tiers for standard papers. Primary authors decide order and document their contributions in the acknowledgments section. Second tier is alphabetical and ends in "The LSST Dark Energy Science Collaboration." Research notes and conference proceedings have short author lists "for the LSST DESC collaboration." WG conveners request, and Publication board appoints, a review committee. After final draft is agreed, collaboration-wide comment period is two weeks. Publication manager gives final approval for submission after verifying compliance with policy. Publication board and manager appointed to two year terms
Fermi Publication Policy Any collaboration member can propose a paper. The appropriate science group develops the proposal, and sends it to the Publication board. Science groups decide on the paper category, but final decision rests with PI in consultation with the Publication board and Science group. After the result of the analysis, the Analysis Coordinator and the PI can change the category of the paper (Cat II to Cat I if e.g. an expected upper limit yields a detection). This can happen up until submission. Two main categories: Category I (catalogs and substantial discoveries) are intended to be letters and Category II (follow-up, modeling, and analysis) which are intended for younger scientists to show independence. Three types of papers are alos named: Analysis and Scientific papers (pre-launch and data-based), Instrumentation papers (Mostly Cat II, except mission overviews), and Other papers (catch-all category III). Category I author lists are alphabetical with eligible full collaboration members, postdocs, graduate students, and affiliated scientists who are substantial contributors. Eligibility includes active participation (>50% time) within the past 6 months. Category II papers have shorter author lists and are treated case-by-case, but as a general principle have the main researcher as the first author. Proceedings have up to 4 authors and "for the Fermi LAT Collaboration." Science groups coordinators organize internal review in consultation with the Analysis Coordinator. Results of the review go to the Analysis Coordinator and Publication board. After final draft is agreed, all eligible authors get to review and choose whether to opt in. Authors provide a walk-through of the paper at regular analysis telecon. Comment period is two weeks. Publication board has final sign-off on papers, after review of author list by Analysis Coordinator and the Science group coordinators. The Analysis Coordinator serves for a term of one year and is appointed by the PI. Publication board is PI, the LAT Analysis Coordinator, the Deputy Analysis Coordinator, former Analysis Coordinators, the chair of the Senior Scientist Advisory Committee, the multiwavelength coordinator, a board secretary, and any others appointed by the PI.
IceCube Policies

Projects proposed in science working groups (informally); WG coordinators are expected to protect against conflicts. Once approved by WG, move to plenary approval process. Once results finalized, paper outline is approved by collaboration in plenary telecon.

Two categories of paper: conference proceedings and regular papers. Conference proceeding are "X for the IceCube Collaboration". Science papers are alphabetical with one or more corresponding authors.

No tiers (except for proceedings). Full author list is everyone who has been on the collaboration for more than six months and is current or has left fewer than 18 months ago. Exceptions on a case-by-case basis and approved by collaboration board.

Publications committee of ~10 members at a variety of levels, responsible for assigning reviewers (both on- and off-committee, usually one of each) and approving papers for final submission OK from plenary telecon.

Speakers committee serves as invitation clearinghouse. Slides for international meetings must be sent out a week ahead of time. New results must be approved in a plenary telecon, otherwise no review for seminars and national (e.g. APS, AAS) meetings.

CMS Papers proposed in science WGs, then pre-approved by physics coordinator (global position). No categories. Author lists are alphabetical, with no corresponding authors. Review by ad-hoc committee appointed by publications committee, consisting of committee and WG members. Once committee is satisfied, initial approval by publications committee and analysis coordinator. Paper then opened for comments by the collaboration, which are sent to, and filtered by, the ad-hoc committee. Once the committee is satisfied that all questions are addressed, publications committee and physics coordinator approve status for final reading, then publication. Publications submitted by publications committee Complex weighting algorithm used to assign talk priorities involving time since PhD, etc. Not clear what the scope of the prioritization is.
IceCube Policies

Projects proposed in science working groups (informally); WG coordinators are expected to protect against conflicts. Once approved by WG, move to plenary approval process. Once results finalized, paper outline is approved by collaboration in plenary telecon.

Two categories of paper: conference proceedings and regular papers. Conference proceeding are "X for the IceCube Collaboration". Science papers are alphabetical with one or more corresponding authors.

No tiers (except for proceedings). Full author list is everyone who has been on the collaboration for more than six months and is current or has left fewer than 18 months ago. Exceptions on a case-by-case basis and approved by collaboration board.

Publications committee of ~10 members at a variety of levels, responsible for assigning reviewers (both on- and off-committee, usually one of each) and approving papers for final submission OK from plenary telecon.

Speakers committee serves as invitation clearinghouse. Slides for international meetings must be sent out a week ahead of time. New results must be approved in a plenary telecon, otherwise no review for seminars and national (e.g. APS, AAS) meetings.

Initial Opinion Survey

Anyone who wants their opinions posted anonymously can contact Kevin or Nathan (or Tom or Jo) and we will arrange to post it.

Survey of WG Member Opinions
Name (optional) General Talks Goals Specific Talks Opinions (Things Wanted or Not Wanted) General Publications Goals Specific Pubs Opinions (Things Wanted or Not Wanted) Other
Nathan (in individual capacity) Ensure exposure for CMB-S4 by soliciting talk invitations and for junior members by making sure invitations do not only go to senior members. Curate standard example slide deck. Operate with a light touch (i.e. rarely or never prevent talks by interested parties). Provide individual recognition where appropriate without devaluing broad tasks contributing to many papers. (absent for now)
Lloyd Knox Ensure exposure for CMB-S4 by soliciting talk invitations and to divide up talk invitations to reward contributions, with special attention to promoting junior members. Curate standard example slide deck. Operate with a light touch (i.e. rarely or never prevent talks by interested parties). 1) First: ensure high-quality, high-integrity communication of results. 2) Reduce overhead in time spent determining author order. 3) Provide clear procedure for paper process from proposal of a paper through to completion to help organization of work and smooth functioning of the collaboration. 4) Provide a means for recognizing contributions, both more individual focused efforts and the broader efforts to make the whole experiment happen. (absent for now)
Christian Reichardt Ensure exposure for CMB-S4 by soliciting talk invitations and to divide up talk invitations to reward contributions, with special attention to promoting junior members. Curate standard example slides. Operate with a light touch (i.e. rarely prevent talks by interested parties; minimize time spent reviewing talks; focus review on higher-profile talks, not national meetings/small conferences). 1) A clear and efficient process for robust internal review of papers. 2) Clear rules for authorship to recognize contributions. 1) For current CMB collab sizes, I tend to think the small top tier followed by alphabetical is the best approach. However, I'm not sure that scales to CMB-S4 sizes, where pure alphabetical might be better for major papers. 2) I'd support some version of an small group review (or possibly splitting this to ask some people to carefully check content, some to check the clarity/presentation), followed by an few-week collaboration wide review period.