[Esip-citationguidelines] EOS article for discussion tomorrow

Tue Feb 15 08:47:48 EST 2022

Hi Mark,

This looks pretty good to me.  I've suggested a few edits, and made a few comments.

Dan

> On Feb 14, 2022, at 5:18 PM, Mark Parsons via Esip-citationguidelines <esip-citationguidelines at lists.esipfed.org> wrote:
> 
> Friends,
> 
> The document is in good shape. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qsPuPkc4Hockej1wy9LrlzHfg0p42MwOURdTMVDWZ_c/edit?usp=sharing <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qsPuPkc4Hockej1wy9LrlzHfg0p42MwOURdTMVDWZ_c/edit?usp=sharing>
> 
> Here’s the latest.
> 
> Thank you to Dan and Sarah for offering alternative first paragraphs. A couple people liked Sarah’s paragraph so a lightly edited version of that is what is in place now. Others are still welcome to offer an alternative.
> I cleaned up the discussion of the work we did and tried to introduce it more clearly.
> I accepted/rejected all the various minor edits. Thanks all.
> I considered adding something about how the paper is the work of dozens and how this is ironically belied by the five author limit, but we are hitting the word limit, and I couldn’t figure out a way to do it elegantly. (The EOS editors would probably kill it anyway).
> Instead I think we need an extensive acknowledgements section. I started to list people involved in all the CRediT roles. Please review. (I hope acknowledgements are not part of the word limit)
> I asked AGU about including authors who need agency review and we can still do that.
> 
> cheers,
> 
> -m. 
> 
>> On Feb 10, 2022, at 5:48 PM, Mark Parsons <parsonsm.work at icloud.com <mailto:parsonsm.work at icloud.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> Thanks for the lively discussion today. Notes at 
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/18ooEixbchKp-qgAG7qtnebKrWDYsutt4d2eX3HsaWls/edit?usp=sharing <https://docs.google.com/document/d/18ooEixbchKp-qgAG7qtnebKrWDYsutt4d2eX3HsaWls/edit?usp=sharing> 
>> 
>> I have cleaned up the current version of the manuscript based on our discussion and my review of some of the smaller editorial changes.
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qsPuPkc4Hockej1wy9LrlzHfg0p42MwOURdTMVDWZ_c/edit?usp=sharing <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qsPuPkc4Hockej1wy9LrlzHfg0p42MwOURdTMVDWZ_c/edit?usp=sharing>
>> 
>> We will meet again next Thursday, 17 Feb. at 14:30 Mountain time to finalize things on our regular Zoom channel. I’ll send an invite
>> 
>> Meanwhile, everyone should consider writing a new first paragraph and teaser. Do like Dan did and just insert an alternative paragraph. Don’t edit the current version.
>> 
>> I will also try and introduce and tighten up the paragraphs describing the work we did over the several meetings. I will also add something about the full authorship and the great irony that we are limited to five. 
>> 
>> Next meeting we should:
>> 
>> 1. Finalize the manuscript
>> 2. Agree on a title (probably not film credits)
>> 3. Finalize authorship — note AGU guidance states: “Authors listed in the byline must be those who actually write the manuscript.” (Their emphasis)
>> 
>> 
>> cheers,
>> 
>> -m. 
>> 
>>> On Feb 9, 2022, at 11:14 AM, Mark Parsons <parsonsm.work at icloud.com <mailto:parsonsm.work at icloud.com>> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <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 <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 <mailto: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

-- 
Daniel S. Katz
Chief Scientist, NCSA
Research Associate Professor, CS
Research Associate Professor, ECE
Research Associate Professor, iSchool
University of Illinois
(217) 244-8000
d.katz at ieee.org or dskatz at illinois.edu
https://danielskatz.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.esipfed.org/pipermail/esip-citationguidelines/attachments/20220215/f6ba6696/attachment-0001.htm>