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

2. 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

3. ATLAS Publications Policy Stephen Haywood – 27 Feb 2004 3 Outline for this Presentation Purpose of Document Structure of Document Authorship Issues Other Forms of ATLAS Papers and Notes Discussion  Authorship  Other Issues

4. ATLAS Publications Policy Stephen Haywood – 27 Feb 2004 4 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.

5. ATLAS Publications Policy Stephen Haywood – 27 Feb 2004 5 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 …

6. ATLAS Publications Policy Stephen Haywood – 27 Feb 2004 6 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

7. ATLAS Publications Policy Stephen Haywood – 27 Feb 2004 7 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.

8. ATLAS Publications Policy Stephen Haywood – 27 Feb 2004 8 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

9. ATLAS Publications Policy Stephen Haywood – 27 Feb 2004 9 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?

10. ATLAS Publications Policy Stephen Haywood – 27 Feb 2004 10 An example of Pre-Data Credit

11. ATLAS Publications Policy Stephen Haywood – 27 Feb 2004 11 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.

12. ATLAS Publications Policy Stephen Haywood – 27 Feb 2004 12 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.

13. ATLAS Publications Policy Stephen Haywood – 27 Feb 2004 13 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.

14. ATLAS Publications Policy Stephen Haywood – 27 Feb 2004 14 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’ surnames b)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 ?

15. ATLAS Publications Policy Stephen Haywood – 27 Feb 2004 15 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

16. ATLAS Publications Policy Stephen Haywood – 27 Feb 2004 16 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.

17. ATLAS Publications Policy Stephen Haywood – 27 Feb 2004 17 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

18. ATLAS Publications Policy Stephen Haywood – 27 Feb 2004 18 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

19. ATLAS Publications Policy Stephen Haywood – 27 Feb 2004 19 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

20. ATLAS Publications Policy Stephen Haywood – 27 Feb 2004 20 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 technique  Approved 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.

21. ATLAS Publications Policy Stephen Haywood – 27 Feb 2004 21 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

22. ATLAS Publications Policy Stephen Haywood – 27 Feb 2004 22 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]

23. ATLAS Publications Policy Stephen Haywood – 27 Feb 2004 23 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?

24. ATLAS Publications Policy Stephen Haywood – 27 Feb 2004 24 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 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. How should list be ordered ? a)Alphabetically by Authors’ surnames b)Alphabetically by Institute, and then by Authors names within Institute list Active signing of papers – perhaps not at beginning, but maybe later ?

25. ATLAS Publications Policy Stephen Haywood – 27 Feb 2004 25 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 ?