Present: Frank, Laura, Sara, Ina, Orlando, Jeremy, Viktor, Leo (part-time), Chris (part-time)
Brief notes from today's discussion.:
More involvement from the APB side in the substantial aspects of full-DUNE publications:
We briefly revisited this item but (again) did not come to a conclusion. It was agreed that Laura and Frank would discuss this and come up with a concrete proposal (which we can then discuss further).
Figure style:
We discussed a bit of the past history of this topic (Jeremy Hewett had been working on this before, with some input from Laura's side, but it has not progressed much since then). Jeremy kindly agreed to pick up this item again, possibly recruiting further assistance from within Young DUNE. The previous strategy was two-tiered: (1) a set of requirements, and (2) a set of recommendations; and it seems reasonable to continue on that path. It was also clear that requirements / recommendations need to come with tools to implement them.
Conference proceedings:
We discussed the rationale for having one APB member taking specific responsibility for guiding the process of assigning coordinators of conference proceedings. We had the good fortune of Ina agreeing to take on this responsibility for the foreseeable future (thanks!); further details (notably, some rotation scheme, should this turn out to be a significant burden) will be discussed later.
Review of analyses:
Chris discussed a topic that he and Inés had raised earlier, namely the fact that the "Analysis Package" that is mentioned in the policy document (beyond the paper draft itself) in practice is nonexistent; and that (connected to this) there is no formal requirement on the existence of a distinct approval step of the analysis (as opposed to the paper). Chris and Inés will draft a proposal, which we can then discuss in more detail.
While on this, we also touched on two related topics. The first of these is the approval of plots, for which at least it is not always crystal clear what the "working group" is that (according to the policy document) is meant to be responsible for this. The second is the release of preliminary results, for which at present we do not have a mechanism at all. The proposal by Chris and Inés is that this becomes the responsibility of the physics coordinators rather than the APB, and this did not meet with immediate objections. (Note added after Chris signed off: not all results are in the physics area, so depending on the topic it may be more appropriate to have the responsibility reside with the relevant Consortium leadership.)
Line numbers:
Laura brought up the issue that complaints have been made (repeatedly) about draft publications and conference proceedings not having line numbers, making it (at the very least) more difficult for collaborators to comment.
We all agreed that having line numbers is very desirable for the relevant review stages, and that it makes sense to make this simply a requirement for full-DUNE publications and for Technical Papers. For conference proceedings, it was felt that perhaps this would cost too much time (important in view of the time-critical nature of dealing with conference proceedings). We tentatively agreed on the principle of making this a requirement but allowing it to be satisfied only after a draft is circulated to DUNE (if time is really short).
AOB:
Laura mentioned the fact that there is one decision to be taken on a request for a limited-authorship (Technical Paper) publication by the 3DST team. We were not prepared for a discussion, and in view of the limited time it was decided that Laura and Frank would read the draft and make a proposal, to then be discussed offline.
We did not set a definite time for a next meeting; the expectation is that this need not be very soon.
(Note added after the meeting: actually there was a last slide, on web pages, that we did not discuss. Apologies for the oversight; for now it can be taken as information but we probably need to come back to this sometime in the not-too-far future.)