Giovanni Cantatore on behalf of the CAST Collaboration
Trieste, Oct. 2nd 2020

Premise
CAST is a collaboration with < 60 members, therefore (relatively) small by the standards of the particle physics community. As a consequence, we do not have a formal policy for the recognition of individual contributions and rely on consolidated practices. Please keep this in mind when considering the answers below


Do you recognize the issue in your collaboration?
Yes, the issue is fully recognized, especially regarding the contribution by young scientists (PhD students and Postdocs).

Does your collaboration consider it an important/urgent topic?
Yes, it is considered an important topic, again especially regarding young collaboration members.

Do you already have a forum to discuss this?
No.

Can you provide feedback on ”best practices” that you already have implemented? 
The single most important “best practice” we apply is giving priority to thesis material when planning data taking and analysis.



What does your collaboration think about the conclusions of the ECFA report? 

Were some important issues perhaps not addressed? 

Which system do you use for authorlists (alphabetical, opt-in, opt-out, other)? Is it generally appreciated? 
We use alphabetical order with unanimous consensus within the collaboration.



Which system do you use for assigning conference talks? How are talks prepared within the collaboration? Do people feel there is enough freedom to determine the contents of their talk? 
We have a standing Publications Committee which collects opportunities and requests for talks, and assigns them accordingly. Talk preparation is normally free and individual. In the case of PhD students the supervisor exercises a control role.


What do you think of making analysis notes (limited authorlist of analysis proponents) public? What are reasons pro and con to do that? Would you object to a system where statistics can be collected for the proponents of such ana-notes? Would it be useful to introduce a JENAS wide system? 


What is your opinion of prizes and awards? Do you differentiate between awards (a prize for “the best”) and “rewards” (a prize for “an achievement” – no selection). 
People generally appreciate both prizes and awards, normally making very little differentiation.

One way to recognize achievement is appointing people to responsible positions (board member, conveners, reviewer etc.). How does that work in practice in your collaboration? Does it have a political aspect e.g. equal share between countries? 
We have a very loose structure (basically spokesperson, deputy-spokesperson and sub-detector group leaders), we discuss individual cases in the Steering Committee of the experiment, where representatives from all participating Institutions sit.

Analysis reviews are sometimes lengthy procedures that take longer than the job contract of individuals doing the analysis, such that papers are not ready to be published or that results unblinded before graduation or end of contract. Is this an issue? If so, is there a mechanism to deal with that? 
Normally it is not an issue. we do not have a mechanism, however we agree that a collaborator is allowed to sign papers up to a year after the end of the contract.

Do you have specific policies or practices to promote the work of juniors?
We do not have specific policies, however as a standard practice we ask juniors to present their work at least in our regular collaboration meetings.

Do you have something in place for recognition for technical issues?
No

What do you put in place to help the recognition of individuals by members external of the collaboration (for instance for their career advancement). Is there a way for external referee to asses what a convenership entails ? 
No action on this

Are specific measures in place to include individual’s opinion in decision making processes?
No specific measures are adopted, however discussion and expression of individual opinions is strongly encouraged both during collaboration meetings and within the Steering Committee, where normally non-members are invited on specific issues.