ECFA Meeting on recognition October 5th, 2020 14h00 CEST
Minutes by Bogna Kubik
1. Introduction/reminder of the objectives by Marcel
2. CALICE fiddback (Roman Poschl)
- bottom-up approach to have feedback - ask to the Early Career Researchers to give their answers
- most important is the stimulating work environment (important for all ECR are most sensitive to that)
- detailed feedback under redaction
3. LHCb feedback (Francesca Dordone)
- issue recognized by the collaboration management as an important topic
- no spécifié committee to discuss it
- care taken when doing nominations - gender/nation balance
- internal notes not public - too many details important to the collaboration but not easy to explain to the public in a short way. It would take too much time to write them, while already the analysis requires a very long editorial process
- Thesis and Early career prizes - no minimal number of prizes, especially for performance and hardware analysis
- some liaisons (for PhD) and convenorships (for PostDocs) reserved for brilliant students
- Early career community is set and active
- conference material must be approved by the collaboration (also preliminary material) student can not present the preliminary work of someone else than himself
Side comments:
- CMS and ATLAS software are public (reconstruction), while the technical notes are not - it should be discussed!
- The definition of analysis notes vary across the collaborations - often we are not speaking about the same thing.
4. CMS feedback (Harrison Prosper)
- need best practices of transparency and consistency in appointments and diversity
- best praticiens for management training for younger colleagues
- reflection on how to create a pipeline with diversity as a goal in such a way that everyone feels included un decision making.
- reflection on the authors: do we want that the situation that one signes 1000 papers together with 2000 collaborators remain valid in the future? Anyway the correct interpretation of this situation and the individual contribution must be explained to the committees external to the collaboration.
5. ATLAS feedback (Manuella Victor, Flavia Dias)
- improve transparency of appointments
- hybride selection+volunteering system of allocations for conference talks (ranking based on contribution to the collab)
- alphabetical author list, reflection group on the limited number fo authors
- students allowed to show their results (event not approved by the collar) on the national conferences but not on the international ones (no sensitive results ex. Preparing for a discovery)
- paper draft can become a conference paper - results made public faster
- technical papers encouraged to be shorter and more focused, publication process shorter
Side comments:
- how to deal with some countries where universities require students to have a number (at east 1) publications to have the PhD? Problem was never raised by the students.
- metrics for the technical contributions are not so clear as for the analysis
6. Feedback (Nick van Remortel)
- small collar 20-30 members, never felt conflicts in authorship or conference talk attribution
- mental health and well being should be a concern (little consideration of the problem by the management of the collaboration) (stress with short term job, publishing papers family setting and so on may case depression, anxiety). Possible to allow the groups to establish their own timeline.
7. CAST feedback (Giovanni)
- 60 memenes
- data taking strategy to complete PhD PostDocs analysis
- alphabetical author list + up to 3 corresponding authors (collecting material, writing draft, correspondence with editors)
8. Na60 feedback (Eric Zimmerman)
- large number of topics/person (small collaboration) recognition is informal
- need more stable system for technotes
9. AWAKE ()
- small collaboration
- 1-2 leading authors + alphabetical order
- analysis and tech notes presented in conferences
- committee for publications 3 members with 1 young researcher
10. DUNE
- young Dune committee active for young researchers
- alphabetical author list, possible to publish papers with shorter author list (but problem of who selects the author list)
- problem with publishing technotes: sometimes the data are not up to date
Sidecomment:
- the content of some tech note is made public in the PhD thesis
- collaboration should publish all the relevant info needed to reproduce the published result. Issues with data preservation.
11. COMPASS (Andrea Bresson, Stephan Paul)
- recognition of PhD is easier because they have the thesis manuscript
- récognition of postdocs more difficult (tech notes, ananotes, articles, lot of work)
- analyses never by a single person, in the collaboration usually you have a good feeling of who do what.
12. Best way to give feedback from our working group to the collaborations: written report + slides