[Esip-citationguidelines] Fwd: [External] Query on your Eos proposal - Mark Parsons

[Mark Parsons]

Hi all,

We heard back from EOS and they want to know more. See below. In our meeting tomorrow, I would like to briefly discuss our response.

cheers,

-m. 

> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: eos <eos at agu.org>
> Subject: [External] Query on your Eos proposal - Mark Parsons
> Date: July 7, 2021 at 6:35:53 AM MDT
> To: "map0046 at uah.edu" <map0046 at uah.edu>
> 
> Dear Dr. Parsons,
> 
> Thank you for submitting your proposal on “Film credits for science.”
> 
> We have reviewed your proposal; however, one of the Reviewers had some concerns we'd like to address before we proceed. 
> 
> Please read the comments in highlight below and reply to this email with a brief response. Once we receive your response, we’ll expedite the review and have a decision for you shortly. 
> 
> Eos
> 
> _______________________________ 
> 
> Reviewer #1 Comments:  
>  
> The authors propose a brief description about a new initiative to increase the visibility and impact of Earth science data sets and data products. This has been a big issue over the years in my field and many people do feel that their data products (e.g., a catalog of earthquake locations and sizes) are undervalued in the research community. The assignment of DOIs to data centers and data sets has alleviated this a little, however at the end of the day the onus falls on journal editors to enforce citation to relevant data products. I think the battle is being won, but it is progressing very slowly. Anyway, I would be interested in reading a short update on this issue as proposed by the authors. The good news is it would apply to all sections with AGU; the bad news is that will mainly be interesting to practicing scientists and won't have as big an impact on the broader Eos readership of the Earth science interested public.
>  
> Reviewer #2 Comments:  
>  
> The idea of implementing alternative structures or means to offer credit and recognize contributions in science is intriguing and, other than one or two articles making a case for improved citation of data sets that we’ve featured, isn’t something we’ve covered in depth recently. So I generally like this proposal despite, as Reviewer #1 points out, that it may be of limited interest to non-scientists. 
> 
> However, I’d suggest going back to the authors to ask for some elaboration on what they are proposing as far as workable alternatives to current approaches for designating authorship, credit, etc., or at least as first steps to begin coming up with alternatives. (If they’re just pointing out a problem without offering any potential solutions, I don’t think Eos is the right venue.) They say that the “ESIP Citation Cluster advocates a new way to think about the roles and credit for all the people involved in producing useful scientific artifacts,” but it’s not clear what this new way entails—other than perhaps that it uses the film credit analogy as a starting point. Can they give more information so we know more about what their article would look like? 
> 
> If they do have alternative approaches or ideas to offer, I also think it’ll be important in a potential article to acknowledge if there are possible drawbacks. For instance, much as film credits can drag on for many minutes (and surely must take a lot of time and effort to compile in their own right), I can imagine such credit listings (e.g., for a published article) could become quite lengthy and involve significant time to assemble depending on how widely credit is extended. 
>  
> _______________________________ 
> Parsons Mark 
> 
> Affiliation:
> University of Alabama in Huntsville 
> 
> email:
> map0046 at uah.edu <mailto:map0046 at uah.edu>
> 
> Coauthors:
> Madison Langseth, USGS 
> 
> Content type:
> Opinion
> 
> Proposed title:
> Film credits for science
> 
> Topic(s):
> Informatics, scholarly communication and credit
> 
> Reviewer preference
> Kirk Martinez
> 
> Key points:
> Credit is the currency of science. This has traditionally been primarily done through citation but also through awards and various other means informal and informal, including the names of geo features, instruments, methods, etc. There is increasing recognition that roles need to be more-clearly specified (e.g. the Contributor Roles Taxonomy--CRediT) and that research artifacts other than articles also deserve credit (data, code, methods...). It is important to credit people for all kinds of work and products in science, but that’s difficult. Citation is only one mechanism because there are different roles which need to be credited differently for different artifacts. It can actually get quite complex. The analogy of film credits is often used: Key roles listed at the beginning of the movie and numerous supporting roles listed at the end. What may not be evident is that the order, prominence, and categories of these roles come from a highly negotiated, complex process involving agents, unions, contracts, etc. Can we do something similar for science but simpler? The ESIP Citation Cluster advocates a new way to think about the roles and credit for all the people involved in producing useful scientific artifacts. We need a fuller and more formal method for recognizing appropriate roles in the production of all first-class research objects. 
> 
> Article's importance to Eos readers
> In the era of open science, people deserve to be credited for all their intellectual contributions. AGU has begun to recognize this with the use of CRediT for journal articles and the growing requirement for data and software citation, but the issue is even more complex.
> 
> Broader impacts:
> Open science requires greater recognition for all contributions not just papers.
> 
> Employer review required?
> No 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.esipfed.org/pipermail/esip-citationguidelines/attachments/20210707/eac4001a/attachment.htm>