[Olympus] Author list on OLYMPUS technical papers

[Douglas Kenneth Hasell]

Dear Colleagues,

	As you probably know there has been considerable discussion regarding the author list for technical papers.  On Wednesday, March 12, after the collaboration meeting in Mainz, the group leaders were asked to participate, either directly or indirectly, in a meeting to discuss this issue.  Michael, Uwe, and myself were present in person.  Richard joined by phone.  Stan and Norik sent E-mail messages expressing their positions.  If we include the results from the Doodle poll; the two points of view are almost even: for and against.  In the end Uwe, Michael, and I agreed on a compromise.  The following describes the discussion and the agreement.  Michael will shortly send a message as well.  We hope this will be acceptable to everyone.

	The main point of contention concerned the author list when results obtained from data collected during the running of the OLYMPUS experiment are presented in a technical paper.  Clearly such data was collected using the data acquisition system, slow control, trigger, various detectors, etc.  However, the results presented are generally related to the performance of a single component and not the physics goals of the OLYMPUS experiment.

	As an example, the target paper includes a figure showing the triangular, density distribution of the hydrogen gas in the target cell.  We did not form a collaboration to measure this distribution. But it is derived from data collected by the experiment.  The figure illustrates that the expected distribution was obtained.  The authors of the target paper are willing to remove this figure and keep the author list of only those people involved directly in the design, construction, and installation of the target.

	Removing the figure and using the reduced author list would be satisfactory to all parties for this paper; but we should try to find guidelines to cover future technical papers rather than repeat this discussion for each paper.

	The target paper has enough other details that it can stand alone without the density distribution figure.  However a purely technical description of the time of flight detectors, for example, giving the thickness, width, height, PMTs top and bottom, etc. would probably not be suitable by itself as a published paper.  To be useful a paper on the ToF should include information on the performance like attenuation lengths, time offsets, efficiencies, gain calibrations, etc.  Such a paper could be cited from a physics paper describing the impact of the ToF performance on the physics measurements for which OLYMPUS was intended.  Everyone agrees on the usefulness of such a paper but we disagree on whether or not such a paper can have a restricted author list with just the principals involved in the various aspects of the ToF work or if the author list must include the entire collaboration.

	The compromise we propose is that technical papers can have a restricted author list of just those people directly involved and include performance results obtained from the OLYMPUS data so long as those results do not relate directly to the physics goals of OLYMPUS.  A simple criteria would be any result showing a beam species asymmetry.  For example, a technical paper on the GEM detectors can show plots of efficiency, acceptance, vertex, momentum, etc. but not show the ratio of normalized rates for electron and positron runs.  Such a result would be close to the main purpose of the OLYMPUS experiment.

	I think this compromise is reasonable and, hopefully, can be accepted by everyone in the collaboration.

	The main arguments raised in reaching this compromise are as follows:

1. The technical paper describes, in detail, work done on a particular component of the experiment. This is generally done by a small group of people including many people which will not be listed on the OLYMPUS physics papers (e.g. engineers, technicians, under-graduates, people who consulted on some aspect, etc.).

2. The reduced author list for such a paper acknowledges the contribution of that small group of people in a clear way.  Their name is one of five or ten, not one of 55.  They can list this as one of their publications and it is clear that they made a significant contribution worthy of being included in the author list.

3. While it might seem petty; a reduced author list provides an incentive for the principal authors to write a paper.

4. The contributions of the other OLYMPUS collaborators, in providing the various detectors, sub-systems, and in taking the data used to obtain the performance results, are recognised by the technical paper citing the large OLYMPUS NIM paper just published.  That paper correctly lists all members of the collaboration.  Having it cited by each technical paper increases the number of citations of the large NIM article and proportionally acknowledges the contribution of the rest of the collaboration to each technical paper.

5. The small technical papers from OLYMPUS will likely not be cited by many papers except other OLYMPUS papers.

6. In the large NIM paper on the OLYMPUS experiment we acknowledge the contribution of the various funding agencies.  This is correct because each funding agency contributed to some part of OLYMPUS described in that paper.  In the future, smaller, technical papers we will acknowledge the funding agencies that contributed to the subject of that technical paper (for the target paper DOE).  This is appropriate and gives a paper that can be shown to the funding agency.  With the reduced author list it better represents the work and people that funding agency's contribution supported.

7. Restricted author lists for technical papers has been the experience of several people with other collaborations: TASSO, BLAST, ZEUS, HERMES, etc.

8. These small technical papers will largely be written by the graduate students who have done most of the work to realise the sub-component or made the analysis for the detector performance.  The restricted author list recognises this contribution and will be a significant part of their early career publication list.

	In the following I list possible technical papers that can be written.  These should be written as soon as possible and before any physics paper so they can be referenced in subsequent physics papers. In this way the physics papers do not need to explain technical details or performance of the various sub-systems but can concentrate on the physics.

Proposed technical papers:

0. OLYMPUS target and vacuum systems.
1. Design, construction, and performance of the WC.
2. Design, construction, and performance of the ToF.
3. Design, construction, and performance of the SYMB.
4. Design, construction, and performance of the GEM.
5. Design, construction, and performance of the MWPC.
6. Magnetic field mapping and parameterization
7. A radiative e+/-p generator
8. Beam position monitor calibration and analysis
9. Beam energy calibration
other ...

	The primary goal for OLYMPUS is of course the e+/-p ratio but I can imagine physics papers which should be produced before the final result.  These papers would explain in detail the luminosity measurements and the detector systematics so the paper with the final result can refer to these papers rather than dealing with these topics itself.  Hopefully there are more physics papers as well.

Proposed physics papers:

1. Luminosity determination for OLYMPUS.
2. Detector systematics in the OLYMPUS e+p / e-p ratio.
3. The two-photon contribution to elastic ep scattering.
4. Comparison and implications 
4. Electro-production of pions in ep scattering at 2.01 GeV.
other ...
                                                    Cheers,
                                                            Douglas

26-415 M.I.T.                                 Tel: +1 (617) 258-7199
77 Massachusetts Avenue                       Fax: +1 (617) 258-5440
Cambridge, MA 02139, USA                      E-mail: hasell at mit.edu