AWAKE recognition.

- I sent out the questions and asked for feedback, but haven’t received answers.  As the collaboration is small, it is potentially hard to get a common view, so I am not too sure how valuable it will be.
  - So I will concentrate on what AWAKE do; this can be taken as input to how recognition can be done.

- The issue of recognition is otherwise discussed in the collaboration, in particular the author list was discussed extensively.

- For physics papers, the author list has one or two lead analysers first, followed by the rest of collaboration alphabetically.  This is to try and promote early-career 
physicists who generally appear in the first or second places.

- For conference proceedings, particularly if they are peer-reviewed in a journal, the early-career scientist will often write a technical paper which serves as good back-up to a collaboration physics paper.  The author list is then just a few people with the junior physicist first.  This is a good way of documenting and releasing “technical notes” and having publications of more value rather than just re-using public plots and writing rather anodyne contributions.
  - In general, we encourage technical papers with reduced author lists and a junior physicist as the first author.

- We have a publications and speakers committee which consists of 3 people, one of whom is an early-career physicist (post-doc).

- The paper reviewing is more lightweight than large collaborations and more freedom is given to the lead authors.

- Convenorship is not so relevant as the collaboration is small.