Presentation on theme: "M. Klein - H1 Author rules for C11 discussion at ICHEP04 at Beijing - 18. 08. 2004 Remarks to the H1 Authorship*) Max Klein *) These remarks."— Presentation transcript:
M. Klein - H1 Author rules for C11 discussion at ICHEP04 at Beijing - 18. 08. 2004 Remarks to the H1 Authorship*) Max Klein (email@example.com) *) These remarks are for informal discussion in C11 only and of personal nature
M. Klein - H1 Author rules for C11 discussion at ICHEP04 at Beijing - 18. 08. 2004 H1 has about 320 authors 38 Institutes from Europe, Asia, America Inelastic ep Scattering at HERA: LoI 1985, TP 1986, data since 1992. investment cost of estimated 80 MEuro publish 10-15 journal papers a year since 1993 about 60% of the (23) LoI institutes are still on H1 H1 composition largely changed, though key institutions are still actively involved.
M. Klein - H1 Author rules for C11 discussion at ICHEP04 at Beijing - 18. 08. 2004 H1 is a large, multipurpose 4pi Detector at HERA Luminosity spectrometer Forward tracking: Si + DC Fast Track Trigger Very Forward Proton Spectro- meter VFPS e p 27.5 GeV920 GeV
M. Klein - H1 Author rules for C11 discussion at ICHEP04 at Beijing - 18. 08. 2004 rules of authorship in H1 you have to visibly do something and be useful for the Collaboration cover 2(3) items out of hardware, software, shifts shifts are obligatory - H1 is operated with 2 persons ~1 shift week/year authors come from H1 member institutes (very few exceptions for special papers/contributions) the member institutes shared the construction, upgrades and they share the operation cost (1.4MЄ) institutes become members by election by the Collaboration board (1 per institute) most institutes stay for decades, few others go or some new groups join (4 new groups in 03/04) authors are physicists (PhD students, postdocs, few engineers) all sign all papers [the question we discuss here] authorship starts half a year after entry to H1 an authorship ends half a year after someone left (definitely) H1. sabbaticals go unnoticed. rules of publication in H1 each paper has internally authors and two referee’s from the collaboration. these are known each paper has an updated authorlist corresponding to the time when a paper was presented to H1 analyses are prepared in working groups. These groups need to agree when a draft goes to H1. H1 has monthly and weekly plenary meetings which decide on a preliminary release paper drafts are announced to all of H1 and commented on by a small fraction of the collaboration the time to comment is 1 week and 2 weekends. a final public reading is done and papers are submitted afterwards if there are no objections. [The rules are reproduced here as I recalled them last night. It seemed easier than to find them.]
M. Klein - H1 Author rules for C11 discussion at ICHEP04 at Beijing - 18. 08. 2004 How are some obvious problems lived through/solved/tolerated in H1? the hardware-software contradiction the division of labour question the difficulty of young (or old) physicists to become visible to the outside the difficulty to know from outside who has done which work in a collaboration the experts “in the hall” do not feel alone since they know without them it’s the end There is no beginning and no end of a paper/analysis. A joint publication implies that analysis work is ranked equally to detector operation or hardware work etc. This is necessary and correct, also fair. Very good, ingenuitive physicists (should) become known via their work and ideas. A true collaboration tries to help. The ways how to help differ: give someone talks, give him no talks, give him more work, or time, send him to act as referee, etc. The evaluation of the quality of a person will always go via his colleagues. Personal contacts are necessary for real judgement in any case. In an application it has become standard to separate ‘own’ papers from the ones of the collaboration. use the telephone to the responsibles. Web is important but less valuable.
M. Klein - H1 Author rules for C11 discussion at ICHEP04 at Beijing - 18. 08. 2004 The described system has not been questioned and was thus stable and successful over the years. I personally believe the problems of adapted author lists for each paper likely are significantly larger, at least for the old H1 with it’s “only” 300 characters. It would start with an ‘old men committee’ to decide these problems. People would fight for their ranking instead of thinking and solving real problems. A large collaboration relies on a good understanding in any case. The times of Geiger, Marsden have passed, we are now hundreds of people.