[G12] g12 publication authorship recommendation

[Eugene Pasyuk]

This is fine, as long as you keep "leading group" reasonably small. Having 20 "leading authors" does not make sense. You really should look into individual contributions to particular paper, and of course you have to ask them before. As you know not everyone signs every single CLAS paper. You still can include limited members in the alphabetic list of the rest of the collaboration. 
Think about this example: none of the experiments would be possible without people who actually built CLAS. Do we include them as "leading authors" in every CLAS paper? The answer is no. We cite papers describing CLAS subsystem and have their names in the general list if they choose so. Why do you think g12 is any different? If you look at our published papers sometimes even a spokespersons of the proposal are not always included in the leading group. 

-Eugene 

> From: "Lei Guo" <lguo at jlab.org>
> To: "Eugene Pasyuk" <pasyuk at jlab.org>
> Cc: "g12 at jlab.org g12 at jlab.org" <g12 at jlab.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2017 2:23:19 PM
> Subject: Re: [G12] g12 publication authorship recommendation

> Hi, Eugene,

> We basically agree with you. Maybe there was something lost in translation in
> the way I wrote it. We do stress that it is up to the contact/lead author to
> decide the ordering of the lead groups. The recommendation we made is
> consistent with the practice many (although not every) previous publications
> including recent ones. And of course, the lead/contact author can decide not to
> follow our recommendation, and anyone who are in the list can also choose not
> to be included.

> Thanks!

> Lei

> _______________________________________________
> G12 mailing list
> G12 at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/g12
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/g12/attachments/20171018/ad152be5/attachment.html>