Differences between revisions 4 and 5

Young Researchers Telecon November 21, 2018 (13:00 - 15:00, JST)

Participants (INPO): K. Nagano, Ushiba, Takahiro Yamamoto, Darkhan, Eleonora, Komori, Kozakai, M. Nakano, Oshino, Kuroyanagi, Takano, Morisaki, Yuzurihara

Zoom meeting: https://zoom.us/j/6676627462

back to Young Researchers' page

Minutes

What are the criteria of "KAGRA collaboration open data"?
- -> No clear definition so far. The only criterion is whether it's approved in the F2F meeting. In the current situation, it's decided by the atmosphere among the collaboration.
The data taken in the KAGRA laboratory basically becomes "KAGRA data". If there are no clear criteria to make it "KAGRA collaboration open data", students cannot know whether his/her paper will be full or short author list at the point of taking data and writing a paper. Isn't it a problem?
- -> The definition of "KAGRA collaboration open data" is clearly the source of the problem. However, the working group of "definition of KAGRA data" states that the criteria for "KAGRA collaboration open data" is out of their scope. It should be discussed in the next F2F.
About category II-1 (Publication in Category II, use of KAGRA data)
- For example, if a person writes a paper using data calibrated by other people, it should be full author list.
- What are the criteria of significant contribution? It's difficult to define "contribution" for a specific project.
The document that describes publication rules should give more information for students/postdocs to find out which category their research falls under. E.g. if a student is using KAGRA data and intends to write a paper, he/she should be able to find the rules for KAGRA data and KAGRA open data in this document.
If we allow more short author list papers, it may happen that the authors write a "strange" paper from their own perspective.
- -> There should be peer review. It could happen even in the current system, so we need to trust people in the collaboration to a certain extent.
The main motivation to allow more short author list is that currently there are full author papers which people other than main authors cannot take responsibility for the content of the paper.
Who will judge about whether the paper becomes full or short author list? It's difficult to make a clear definition and judge exceptional cases.
- -> CPC? It also could be KSC.
- -> Doesn't it increase work of KSC?
- -> The authors first could make a suggestion and CPC/KSC will judge. They have to check the contents of the paper even in the current system, so it will not make extra work for them.
For short author papers, it's difficult to make clear criteria who will be on the list.
- -> It happens everywhere, and not only the case of KAGRA. So it should be considered as a separated issue. In addition, there should be an opportunity inside the collaboration to express opinions about names in the author list.

Agenda

Summary of current KAGRA's publication rule [K. Nagano] JGW-G1809307
- KAGRA publication policy JGW-M1503321
- Definition of KAGRA data JGW-G1503318
- Some recent discussions about KAGRA's publication rule
  - Definition of “KAGRA data”
  - “Several authors on behalf of the KAGRA collaboration” JGW-L1706328
  - ”Category I” criteria
Some examples of opinion in KAGRA collaboration [Ushiba] slide
Discussion

KAGRA/YoungResearcher/Minutes20181121 (last edited 2018-11-23 11:52:25 by darkhan.tuyenbayev)

-  ⇤ ← Revision 4 as of 2018-11-21 00:47:24 → 
  Size: 1001
  Editor: KojiNagano
  Comment:
+   ← Revision 5 as of 2018-11-22 14:23:53 → ⇥
  Size: 3908
  Editor: KojiNagano
  Comment:
-Deletions are marked like this.
+Additions are marked like this.
 Line 2:
-Participants:
+Participants (INPO): K. Nagano, Ushiba, Takahiro Yamamoto, Darkhan, Eleonora, Komori, Kozakai, M. Nakano, Oshino, Kuroyanagi, Takano, Morisaki, Yuzurihara
 Line 9:
+ * What are the criteria of "KAGRA collaboration open data"?
  * -> No clear definition so far. The only criterion is whether it's approved in the F2F meeting. In the current situation, it's decided by the atmosphere among the collaboration.
-Line 10:
+Line 12:
+ * The data taken in the KAGRA laboratory basically becomes "KAGRA data".  If there are no clear criteria to make it "KAGRA collaboration open data", students cannot know whether his/her paper will be full or short author list at the point of taking data and writing a paper.  Isn't it a problem?
  * -> The definition of "KAGRA collaboration open data" is clearly the source of the problem. However, the working group of "definition of KAGRA data" states that the criteria for "KAGRA collaboration open data" is out of their scope.  It should be discussed in the next F2F.

 * About category II-1 (Publication in Category II, use of KAGRA data)
  * For example, if a person writes a paper using data calibrated by other people, it should be full author list.
  * What are the criteria of significant contribution?  It's difficult to define "contribution" for a specific project.

 * The document that describes publication rules should give more information for students/postdocs to find out which category their research falls under. E.g. if a student is using KAGRA data and intends to write a paper, he/she should be able to find the rules for KAGRA data and KAGRA open data in this document.

 * If we allow more short author list papers, it may happen that the authors write a "strange" paper from their own perspective.
  * -> There should be peer review.  It could happen even in the current system, so we need to trust people in the collaboration to a certain extent.

 * The main motivation to allow more short author list is that currently there are full author papers which people other than main authors cannot take responsibility for the content of the paper.

 * Who will judge about whether the paper becomes full or short author list? It's difficult to make a clear definition and judge exceptional cases.
  * -> CPC? It also could be KSC.
  * -> Doesn't it increase work of KSC?
  * -> The authors first could make a suggestion and CPC/KSC will judge. They have to check the contents of the paper even in the current system, so it will not make extra work for them.

 * For short author papers, it's difficult to make clear criteria who will be on the list.
  * -> It happens everywhere, and not only the case of KAGRA. So it should be considered as a separated issue. In addition, there should be an opportunity inside the collaboration to express opinions about names in the author list.
-Line 19:
+Line 42:
- * Some examples of opinion in KAGRA collaboration [Ushiba]
+ * Some examples of opinion in KAGRA collaboration [Ushiba] [[https://www.dropbox.com/s/eamjq4t9482xre3/YoungResearcherMeeting_20181122.pdf?dl=0|slide]]