AOE-2001 Publication policy

1. AOE-2001 Publication policy Discussion

2. Authoring Practically all projects of this size are plagued by endless discussions on who should be an author on what paper. All extremes exist: • “As soon as anything I did is used in any way, I should be a co-author” • “I should co-author all papers by my students” • “I put in so much effort generating the base-funding and in planning, I should be a co-author on all papers coming out of the project” • “I should co-author any paper where my measurements are used” • “I should co-author any papers where any part of any model formulation I ever generated is used” • “Nobody that did not have a direct and visible impact on this paper should be a co-author”

3. “Co-authoring score” Rate your input according to: Intellectual input: None………………………………………………………………..0 A detailed discussion.. …………………………………………….5 Several detailed discussions ..……………………………………10 Correspondence or longer meetings………………….…………..15 Substantial liaisons……………………………………………….20 Closest possible involvement..…………………………………...25 Practical input (data capture): None………………………………………………………………..0 Small contribution……..…………………………………………..5 Moderate indirect contribution..………………………………….10 Moderate direct contribution……..………………………………15 Major indirect contribution……………………………………….20 Major direct contribution…..……..………………………………25 Practical input (data reduction): None………………………………………………………………..0 Minor or brief assistance…………………………………………..5 Substantial or prolonged assistance………………………………10 Specialist input (scientific analysis): None………………………………………………………………..0 Brief or routine assistance..………………………………………..5 Specially tailored assistance……...………………………………10 Basis of approach…………………………………………………15 Literary input (writing): None………………………………………………………………..0 Edited others material….…………………………………………..5 Contributed small sections………..………………………………10 Contributed moderate proportion….……………………………..15 Contributed majority……………………………………………..20 Contributed virtually all………………………………………….25

4. “Co-authoring score”continued How to apply it: • Sum the score for all contributing to a paper. • Rank co-authors according to their score. • Drop everyone falling below 25p Example 1: Caroline, Erik and Keith writes a paper about characteriza-tion of aerosol chemistry. For that they need data from Oden’s weather station, which Michael happily provided to the data base over a year ago. In addition, they need to ask a few questions on that data. Michael gets 5p for intellectual input, 5+5p for data capture and analysis and 5p for specia-list input. This adds up to 20p and Michael gets his name in the acknowledgements. Example 1: Caroline, Erik and Keith writes a paper about characteriz-ing possible aerosol source processes. For Michael the work involves preparing a special analysis of boundary-layer structure for a number of events as well as writing a small segment of the text. Michael now gets 5p for intellectual in-put, 10+10 p for data capture and analysis, 10p for specia-list input and 5p for writing. This adds up to 40p and Michael is now offered co-authorship.

5. “Co-authoring score”continued. What does it do? • Limits authorship to people that can “defend” the scientific content of the work • Limits the average number of authors on each papers - better for all... • Facilitate evaluating the order of the authors What does it NOT do? • A human being still has to do the evaluation - this is just a tool. • A human being still have to be polite and show some social skill. Problem 1: Assume we agree on this method, but some one still gets pissed off. Who solves the problem? Problem 2: Should we let authors cut the author lists, or always offer co-authorship to everyone remotely involved and hope decent people declines? Problem 3: Some of us put in considerably more time than others, for the benefit of us all. This include all the planning and meetings that made the expedition possible in the first place. How should that be acknowledged?