[Esip-citationguidelines] Fwd: EOS article for discussion tomorrow

Wed Feb 9 13:57:53 EST 2022

Hi Mark, all,
You may have seen, but the Credit taxonomy has been certified as a NISO
standard. And my apologies but I won't be able to join the call tomorrow
due to a schedule conflict.

https://www.niso.org/press-releases/contributor-roles-taxonomy-credit-formalized-ansiniso-standard

Best,
Matt

On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 11:14 AM Mark Parsons via Esip-citationguidelines <
esip-citationguidelines at lists.esipfed.org> wrote:

> I’m sending this again. It seems we have two mailing lists
>
> cheers,
>
> -m.
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> *From: *Mark Parsons <parsonsm.work at icloud.com>
> *Subject: **EOS article for discussion tomorrow*
> *Date: *February 9, 2022 at 9:31:08 AM MST
> *To: *ESIP Research Object Citation Cluster <
> esip-citations at lists.esipfed.org>
>
> Hi all,
>
> Coming in at the 11th hour, here is a first draft of the EOS article for
> discussion at our Cluster call tomorrow. Edit at will.
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qsPuPkc4Hockej1wy9LrlzHfg0p42MwOURdTMVDWZ_c/edit?usp=sharing
>
> As a reminder I include our original proposal, the reviewer comments, and
> our response below.
>
> You may also want to review the EOS article guidelines:
>
> https://eos.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Eos_Author_Guidelines_Nov2020.pdf
>
> I look forward to the discussion tomorrow
>
> cheers,
>
> -m.
>
>
>
>
> From: eos at agu.org
> To: Web Production
> Date: July 15, 2021 at 6:48am
> Eos Proposal Review - Mark Parsons
>
> Dear Dr. Parsons,
> We are pleased to accept your proposal for an Eos article on “Film credits
> for science.”
>
> Please read the following instructions to ensure your article is produced
> in an easy and timely manner.
> We look forward to working together and publishing your work.
> —Eos
>
> _______________________________
> What happens next?
>
> * Within the next business day, you’ll receive an invitation to Basecamp,
> our editorial platform.
> * Within the next 3 business days, Eos science editor Tim Oleson will
> contact you through Basecamp with our author guide and specific advice as
> you begin writing your manuscript.
> * Once you submit a completed first draft, your article will enter our
> editing queue and an editor will return a first round of feedback as soon
> as possible.
> * The editorial staff will work with you until your article is finalized
> and passed on to the production staff to publish.
> * You’ll receive an automated email as soon as your article is published
> on Eos.org.
> * Your article may be considered for the print version of Eos anytime in
> the next six months. If it is selected, you’ll be notified at the beginning
> of the issue production process.
>
> What should I know before I begin writing my manuscript?
>
> * Do not begin writing until
> * Tim Oleson contacts you on Basecamp and you read his guidance as well as
> the Author Guide he’ll send you.
> * You read the comments below from the Science Adviser, who may have
> instructions for you.
> * You have reviewed articles of the same type on Eos.org and understand
> the basic format of these articles.
> * Your manuscript, in part or whole, should not have been published
> previously in print or online, or submitted elsewhere for publication.
> * Your editor may request draft revisions and may perform substantive
> editing.
> * Your input on the title will be considered, but the final decision is
> the responsibility of Eos. This also applies if your article is selected
> for the print edition of Eos; the editors may adapt the title and teaser
> for that medium.
> * You will get to approve the final version of the article before
> publication; however, irreconcilable disagreements between the author and
> Eos editors or Science Advisers can result in non-publication.
> * This process ensures that the published article is written appropriately
> for Eos’s broad audience. We want our audience to engage with and learn
> from your article, and we want you to enjoy this process with us. Please
> ask questions at any time!
>
> How do I use Basecamp?
>
> * Basecamp is an easy-to-use project management platform. You will have
> access to a folder created for your article.
> * Your Basecamp invitation will come with brief instructions on how to use
> it.
> * Please use Basecamp for all communication going forward.
> * Only corresponding authors will be invited to Basecamp.
> * If you’re having trouble with Basecamp, please contact our production
> team at eos at agu.org<mailto:eos at agu.org>.
>
> What about coauthors (if applicable)?
>
> * You, the corresponding author, are the liaison between Eos and your
> coauthors.
> * You are responsible for notifying them of this acceptance and that only
> you will work in Basecamp.
> * You are responsible for making sure all authors listed on the manuscript
> have agreed to publication of its final accepted form.
> * You may add or swap authors after this acceptance, but the total number
> of authors is limited to 5. No exceptions.
>
> _______________________________
> 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 seismology 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 doi's
> 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 Keith 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.
>
> Reviewer #2’s Comments on Proposer’s Response to Query
> I see now that they're not necessarily advocating specific or
> one-size-fits-all solutions, but they do plan to summarize the "state of
> the art for several artifact types" and "discuss roles that should be
> considered, principles for how they should be evaluated, and suggestions
> for what constitutes “authorship” in a data citation," which is the sort of
> value add in this discussion I was looking for and asking about. Their
> reply ticks the box for me.
>
> _______________________________
> Production Notes
>
> Project Name: OP Parsons FilmCredits
> Topic: n/a
> Index: 1900
> _______________________________
>
> 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
>
> Proposer’s Response to Query
>
> Thank you for your feedback.
>
> In response to the comments from Reviewer 2: Our key finding is that there
> are multiple roles that need to be credited and they differ by research
> artifact. Therefore the “opinion” of the piece is that these roles need to
> be identified and credited. Current mechanisms do not fully allow this and
> not all creditable roles are deserving of “authorship” and citation but
> should still be captured somewhere.
>
> We have found that different approaches are necessary for different types
> of research artifacts. For example, we reviewed how CRediT roles might
> apply to data, software, semantic artifacts, physical samples, and complex
> learning objects. We found that CReidT didn’t really work for any of the
> artifacts, but it didn’t work in different ways. Moreover, different
> communities are taking different approaches and some are more mature than
> others. We will summarize what we see as the current state of the art for
> several artifact types and discuss data in more detail.
>
> We don’t have a fully prescribed solution because credit is very
> contextual thing, but we will discuss roles that should be considered,
> principles for how they should be evaluated, and suggestions for what
> constitutes “authorship” in a data citation.
>
> We will acknowledge that this can add complexity (a potential drawback)
> but we think it is appropriate because it also aids openness and
> accountability.
>
> Our goal is not to promote a particular credit methodology or taxonomy at
> this point but rather to make a call for reconsidering how we provide
> credit in science along with some guidelines on how to do so.
>
> All this in 1500 words :-)
>
> I hope that clarifies.
>
> cheers,
>
> -m.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Esip-citationguidelines mailing list
> To start a new topic: Esip-citationguidelines at lists.esipfed.org
> To unsubscribe and manage prefs:
> https://lists.esipfed.org/mailman/listinfo/esip-citationguidelines
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.esipfed.org/pipermail/esip-citationguidelines/attachments/20220209/e7e5ce01/attachment-0001.htm>