Brief notes from our meeting (slides can be found as attachment):
Present: Frank, Laura, Sara, Ina, Poonam, Viktor, Orlando, Leo, Inés, Chris (apologies from Jeremy)
We had a brief round of introductions, especially of the new APB members.
The remainder of the time was spent discussing the organisational matters that were the main topic of the meeting. We in fact managed to cover only the first 10 pages of the slides. The most salient discussion points all revolved around the review of full-DUNE publications:
- Setting up a list of ARC volunteers: Sara suggested that we ask this through the IB list (where the request for input would be to consider not only expertise but also availability to commit actual time). Inés argued that DUNE is large enough for collaborators at large to simply volunteer. Given that these are not mutually exclusive, it seems reasonable to follow both approaches (but we still need to sort out how to facilitate getting this input, especially from collaborators at large).
- Connected to this, we also discussed the fact that presently, ARC members are not credited for their contributions other than by means of the e-mail notice sent to the collaboration upon submission of the paper. Chris volunteered to discuss with Gina the possibility of accounting for this in the form of the effort reporting.
- Language editing: we discussed the idea of identifying a separate group of collaborators to take on such tasks (as is suggested by the wording in the policy document), but ended up concluding that it will likely be more efficient to tackle this together with the item of attracting volunteers at all. Ideally, when setting up an ARC, it will contain one member with good language skills and the willingness to pay attention to language items in the course of the review.
- Substantial involvement of APB members in the review process: the slides contain a tentative proposal for doing this, but we did not come to a definite conclusion on this (and for want of time, agreed to continue the discussion at a later time). Arguments raised were:
- Leo: it will be more efficient for an APB member to be an ARC member (this ought to address the item of consistency between papers, even if it will not allow for the "fresh" view on papers that would be possible if an APB member is involved later);
- Sara: but the responsibility of APB members is not to be involved in the detailed ARC review.
- Author list formatting issues: we are struggling to reach a sufficient level of automation in preparing author lists. Laura volunteered to contact the Fermilab library to see if they can somehow assist.
We agreed to try and find a slot for another meeting next week, to continue the discussion.
There are minutes attached to this event.
Show them.