[Esip-preserve] Citations

[Alice Barkstrom]

It may be useful to deal with a simple separation of approaches to
production that incorporates the size of the groups involved:

1.  Single author production and publication - classic sociological scenario
that has supported a great deal of previous work

Scenario: author collects measurements, analyzes the data, and writes
up a summary paper; data may be preserved on paper, or in electronic
files; peer-review accomplished by submission of paper to journal, with
a moderate number (three to five) of referees; data publication would involve
having paper or electronic copies of data accepted by a library or data center

2.  Working group production and publication - field experiment (of a variety
of different kinds) would be a typical example

Scenario: group sets up equipment, with single person in charge of each
instrument that will collect data, management of WG done by one or two
people (PI); data from individual instruments combined and intercompared
within the group; data preserved in electronic files - which may be distributed
amongst the WG; each instrument's scientist writes up a paper on his or her
data; peer-review accomplished by submission of papers to a journal special
issue and perhaps a special editor who selects a fair number of referees;
data publication requires formal accession planning by a data center owing
to the volume of data and the cost of curation

3.  Large-scale production and publication - "Big Science" owing to the size
of the effort involved

Scenario: instrument and producer teams selected by large scale proposal
effort - may involve one hundred to two hundred people over a decade; long time
period (5 years is typical) of preparation before data collection 
begins, including
design of production system and data production software; substantial 
pre-collection
peer-review, including ATBDs and related algorithm outlines, as well 
as such documentation
as coordinate transformations, data formats, calibration plans and 
procedures, etc.;
production highly rigid, with extensive planning and scheduling; 
periodic (two to three
times per year) science team reviews of progress - stretching out 
over a decade or
more; multiple publications, both jointly as a team and as individual 
contributions to
journals; multiple calibration and validation exercises in support of 
establishing bounds
on uncertainties; peer-review may involve intercomparisons with 
competing instruments
or data sources; data publication requires resources for large-scale, 
special purpose
data centers owing to cost of computing resources, storage resources, 
and curation
over long periods.

These could be neatened up - and perhaps enumerated.  We really need samples of
each different kind of scenario and group interaction.  Is it worth 
writing these thoughts up into
a format that can go into the wiki?

Bruce B.


At 04:06 PM 4/14/2010, Mark A. Parsons wrote:
>After hearing today's discussion, I thought it might be useful for 
>everyone to see the essay that Ruth and I wrote on citations.
>
>Cheers,
>
>-m.
>
>
>
>On 14 Apr 2010, at 9:38 AM, Ruth Duerr wrote:
>
> > Wednesday March 10, 1 pm MST (3 pm EST)
> > Telephone: 877-326-0011
> > Meeting #: *4917475*
> > Agenda:
> >
> > - Identifiers paper status
> > - Identifiers testbed report
> > - Status of report on AGU townhall
> > - Provenance paper status
> > - Data management recommendations status
> > - Summer ESIP meeting plans
> > _______________________________________________
> > Esip-preserve mailing list
> > Esip-preserve at lists.esipfed.org
> > http://www.lists.esipfed.org/mailman/listinfo/esip-preserve
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Esip-preserve mailing list
>Esip-preserve at lists.esipfed.org
>http://www.lists.esipfed.org/mailman/listinfo/esip-preserve