International Union of Pure and Applied Physics

July 1, 2005 IUPAP-C11 Meeting 1

IUPAP

C11 Commission of Particles and Fields

Vera LüthChair of C11

July 1, 2005Vera Lüth IUPAP – C11 2

2

ICSU - International Councilof Science

27 Unions73 Nat. Scientific

Members

IUPAP - International Union of Pure and Applied Physics 20 Commissions

C11 - Commission On Particles and Fields

13+3 Members

NC – National Contacts 55 contacts +35 via ICTP

July 1, 2005Vera Lüth IUPAP – C11 3

ICSU’s Mission

Strengthen international science for the benefit of society, ICSU mobilizes the knowledge and resources of the international science community to: Identify and address major issues of importance to science and society. Facilitate interaction amongst scientists across all disciplines and from all countries. Promote the participation of all scientists—regardless of race, citizenship, language, political stance, or gender—in the international scientific endeavour. Provide independent, authoritative advice to stimulate constructive dialogue between the scientific community and governments, civil society, and the private sector.

July 1, 2005Vera Lüth IUPAP – C11 4

IUPAP Mission

to assist in the worldwide development of physics, to encourage research and education.to foster international cooperation in physics to sponsor suitable international meetings and to assist organizing committees; to promote international agreements on other use of symbols, units, nomenclature and standards;to foster free circulation of scientists;to help in the application of physics toward solvingproblems of concern to humanity.

July 1, 2005Vera Lüth IUPAP – C11 5

IUPAP Events

Launch of World Year of Physics: “Physics for Tomorrow”UNESCO, Paris, France, January 13-15 2005.

2nd World International Conference on Women in PhysicsRio de Janeiro, May, 23-25, 2005

World Conference on Physics and Sustainable Development Capetown, S.A. October 31-November 2, 2005

IUPAP General Assembly and Meeting of Council and ChairsCapetown, S.A. October 24-28, 2005

IUPAP News/ReportsNew Study: High Magnetic FieldsWG on Women in PhysicsICFA International Committee for Future AcceleratorsWG on Energy

New Working GroupsInternational Committee for Ultra-High Intensity Laser - ICUILNanoscience Working Group News Archives

July 1, 2005Vera Lüth IUPAP – C11 6

2nd IUPAP International Conference on Women in Physics Rio de Janeiro, 23-25 May 2005

Resolution Addressed to the IUPAP GA:1. Assign to the IUPAP Liaison Committees the important role in their countries

to catalyze women's participation in physics and report on progress2. Strongly encourage the physical societies in its member countries to share

information and resources with physicists who are isolated. 3. Require organizers of the conferences to improve their inclusion and

encouragement of women.4. Model exemplary institutional transparency in its policies, procedures,

practices, and activities and increase the presence of women among its leadership.

5. Co-sponsor the development and encourage the use and translation oftraining modules on gender and race equity in physics, on physics education pedagogies and curricula, and on the recruitment, retention, andadvancement of women

6. Charge the IUPAP Working Group on Women in Physics to oversee a thorough international survey of the status of women in physics in 2007, organize the 3rd International Conference on Women in Physics in 2008, and report at the 26th IUPAP General Assembly in Fall 2008.

July 1, 2005Vera Lüth IUPAP – C11 7

World Conference on Physics and Sustainable Development, Durban, S.A. Oct. 31st – Nov, 2nd, 2005.

Sponsored by IUPAP, jointly with UNESCO and ICTP, as well as theS.A. Institute of Physics, as part of the celebration of 2005 as the Year of Physics400-500 participants from developed and developing nationsGoal:

Examine contributions that physics has made to society in the pastFormulate and sharpen action-oriented plans for contributions physicists can and should make in the futureEngage organizations of physicists in the collective implementation

Four themes:Physics and Economic DevelopmentPhysics and HealthEnergy and EnvironmentPhysics Education

Deadline for registration: August 31, 2005For information see www.wcpsd.org

July 1, 2005Vera Lüth IUPAP – C11 8

IUPAP General Assembly (Capetown, Oct. 26-28, 2005)

The General Assembly is the highest governing body of the Union. It: Creates and amends these Statutes (requires a two-thirds majority of those present.) Sets and amends the procedural By-laws (requires a three-fifths majority of those present). Elects the Executive Council that oversees Union activities between General Assemblies. Elect members of its Commissions. Sets the members dues.

The General Assembly may: Set policy. Establish or disestablish Commissions that are assigned specific tasks in their charter, and elect their members, Recognize a group of scientists outside of the Union as an Affiliated Commission, Decide to participate in interdisciplinary or other international scientific bodies. Accept new members.

The General Assembly meets every three years. The Council will call special meetings at the request of one-third of the members, or at its own request. The President presides over the General Assembly. The Secretary-General is responsible for making a record of all activities. Election procedures are specified in the By-laws. Commissions have to submit written report on last three years of activities.

July 1, 2005Vera Lüth IUPAP – C11 9

IUPAP Council and Commission Chairs

IUPAP Council and Chairs, Mumbai India, October 2004Front row: Sergio Rezende, Shoji Nagamiya, Judy Franz, Yves Petroff, Vera Lüth, Mustansir Barma, Bob Barber, William Van WijngaardenSecond row: Deepak Mathur, Abhijit Sen , Edmund Zingu, Gérard Martinez, Hide Fukuyama, Pierre Monceau (forward), Toshikazu Takada, (back), Azam Niroomand-Rad (forward), Gunnar Tibell (back), Peter Wenzel (forward)Third Row: Alan Astbury, Naresh Dadich, Virginia Trimble, Juergen Sahm, Phil Nelson, Pal Ormos, Joseph Avron

Next Meeting: Oct. 24-25, 2005

July 1, 2005Vera Lüth IUPAP – C11 10

Commission on Particles and FieldIUPAP - C11

Members Oct. 2002 – Oct. 2005V. G. LüthA. SmithM. Turala

C. FoscoR. GodboleG. HertenT. HuangE. IarocciA. SissakianS. StapnesG. WormserT. YamanakaM. Zeller

USA ChairU.K. Vice ChairPoland Secretary

ArgentinaIndiaGermanyChinaItalyRussiaNorwayFranceJapanUSA

Associate MembersE. ZasD.-O. RiskaA. McDonald

C4C12C19

July 1, 2005Vera Lüth IUPAP – C11 11

Commission on Particles and FieldIUPAP - C11

Members Oct. 2006 – Oct. 2008 ??Chair

. Vice ChairSecretary

ArgentinaIndiaGermanyChinaItalyRussiaNorwayFranceJapanUSA

C. FoscoR. GodboleG. Herten

S. StapnesG. WormserT. Yamanaka

Associate MembersE. ZasD.-O. RiskaA. McDonald

C4C12C19

July 1, 2005Vera Lüth IUPAP – C11 12

Reminder of C11 Mandate by IUPAP

1. Promote the exchange of information among the members of the international scientific community in the general field of Particles and Fields including:

1. the theory and experiment 2. the maintaining of liaison with ICFA; 3. the accelerators, detectors and techniques used in these investigations; 4. the industrial applications of relevant technologies.

2. Recommend for IUPAP sponsorship international conferences To assist in the organization of such conferences as practical.

3. Assist conference organizers in ensuring such free circulation and in resolving potential infringements.

4. Organize where feasible the award of medals or other testimonials of excellence – we actually have some funds

5. Publish where feasible newsletters, circulars, occasional books, journals or handbooks

6. Maintain liaison with other IUPAP Commissions or other scientific organization. In particular close liaison with the General Commissions of IUPAP (Physics Education and Development).

7. Make available to the General Assembly a summary of activities and progress in its field since the previous Assembly.

July 1, 2005Vera Lüth IUPAP – C11 13

C11

Activities Oversight and sponsorship of two international conferences,

i.e. ICHEP and LP in alternate yearsGuidelines for meetings and assistance in international contacts

Recommendation on LP Format (2001)Recommendation on ICHEP Format (2004)

Other: WG on AuthorshipInformation:http://www.iupap.org and http://www.ifj.edu.pl/IUPAP/iupap-c11.html

Important Working Groups:International Committee For Future AcceleratorsJ. Dorfan (chair) http://www.fnal.gov/directorate/icfa/

Particle and Nuclear Astrophysics and Gravitation CommitteeA. Bettini (chair) http://www.lngs.infn.it/site/exppro/panagicC11 Liaison: Michael Zeller

ICFA

PANAGIC

July 1, 2005Vera Lüth IUPAP – C11 14

C11 Tradition of more than 40 Years

Past Conferences Future ConferencesGlasgowBeijingWarsawHamburgVancouverStanfordOsakaRomeAmsterdamBataviaBeijing

ICHEP - 94LP - 95ICHEP-96LP - 97 ICHEP - 98LP - 99ICHEP - 00LP - 01ICHEP - 02LP – 03ICHEP - 04

BeijingUppsalaMoscow

LP - 05 UppsalaICHEP - 06 MoscowLP - 07 Daegu-------------------------------ICHEP - 08 PhiladelphiaLP – 09 Hamburg/Mumbai?ICHEP -10 Paris/Heidelberg ?

July 1, 2005Vera Lüth IUPAP – C11 15

IUPAP Sponsorship: Guidelines

IUPAP sponsors from 20-30 conferences/yearFinancial support of ~ $15,000Conference organizers desiring IUPAP's sponsorship should submit the application form by May 1st to

C11 and National Liaison Committeethe IUPAP Secretariat

Provide following information to meet requirementsTitle, Location, dateAdvisory committees – worldwide and diversity (>1 Women)Expected attendance, < 30% from any one country Proceedings in print or on the webFree access to all bone-fide qualified scientists, independent of origin or nationality (IUPAP Policy on Free Circulation of Scientists)Registration fee < 410 EurosPlease consult: http://www.iupap.org/conferences/policies-detail.html#A

Also, consult with C11 on format, committees, organization, conference venue and facilities, accommodation, transportatinPrepare written report to C11 (next meeting) and IUPAP (website)

July 1, 2005Vera Lüth IUPAP – C11 16

Quota for Conference Delegates

To assure balance participation and give guidelines to national HEP communities C11 introduced national quota for conferences.Quota are not in general meant to limit participation or excludescientists from participation, they are meant ot be guidelines.IUPAP request that no nation should dominate these truly intenational conferences, i.e. have more than 1/3 of all delegates.In recent years, organizers have had difficulty attracting participants and thus have often sent invitations to a wider community, irrespective of national quota.This can lead to an imbalance.The goal of C11 and the organizers should be to make these conferences more attractive, and cheaper, so younger physicists participate in larger numbers.A proposal for balanced quota will be provided and posted oin the C11 webpage.

July 1, 2005Vera Lüth IUPAP – C11 17

Quota for C11 Conferences

Country Quota Host/VIP Europe FSU AmericasAsia/Aus

tralia OtherTotals 1000 250 372 59 186 109 24Fraction 100% 25% 37% 6% 19% 11% 2%Host Region 220 220

VIPs 30 30

Albania 2 2

Algeria 2 2

Argentina 4 4

Armenia 2 2

Australia 5 5

Austria 7 7

Azerbaijan 2 2

Bangladesh 2 2

Host Region will generally send more delegates, but should not exceed 30% per country, 50% per region

July 1, 2005Vera Lüth IUPAP – C11 18

Visa Problems – US/Japan/EuropeIn view of the threat to national security and competition in scientific and technology developments many countries have revised procedures and policies for visa approval. These have impacted many foreign scientists, from students to laboratory directors.

While there have been denials of visa to HEP physicists collaborating with KEK, most of the problems are related to US visa.

Even though procedures have been streamlined in the past two years, there still have been denials of visa to bona fide students and scientists.

Leaders of the major US science organizations (> 40) filed a 2nd petition this year, pointing out the impact of the current practices and suggesting

Extension of the validity of the Visa Mantis security clearances from two years to the duration of the appointmentPermission to renew visa in the US, rather than outside, and thus guaranteeing a reentry visa prior to departure.Passports be returned to applicants while application is being consideredRenegotiation of visa reciprocity agreements with countries such as China and Russia to permit multi-entry visa Amend requirements for students to prove intent to return to homeDevelop global strategy to promote academic and scientific exchange

Given the general improvements, IUPAP will again sponsor conferences in the USA

July 1, 2005Vera Lüth IUPAP – C11 19

AGENDA for C11 MEETING

General Session

1. 15:30 – 15:35 Welcome to C11 Members and Guests.

2. 15:35 – 15:40 Adoption of Agenda M. Turala

3. 15:40 – 15:45 Approval of Minutes of the C11 Meeting at Beijing

4. 15:45 – 16:05 Chair Report V. Lüth

5. 16:05 – 16:20 Report from ICFA J. Dorfan / R. Rubinstein

6. 16:20 - 17:40 Conferences Oversight

7. 17:40 – 18:10 Reports from C4, C12 and C19

Dinner

Executive session (C11 members only)

8. 19:00 – 19:30 C11 Membership V. Lüth

9. 19:30 – 20:00 Report from WG on Authorship V. Lüth

10. 20:00 – 20:15 Any Other Business - Conclusions

20:15 Adjourn

July 1, 2005Vera Lüth IUPAP – C11 20

Appointment of New Member of C11

July 1, 2005Vera Lüth IUPAP – C11 21

IUPAP Process of Appointment of members of Commission Members and Chairs - Rules

Membership in IUPAP Commissions is set by its Statutes and Bylaws

Every 3 years members are nominated by either

• National Liaison Committees (deadline June 1) or

• the Commission Chairs (deadline Sept. 1)

Appointments are result of the vote in IUPAP General Assembly,Oct. 26-28 in Capetown, S.A.

IUPAP as whole needs make sure that overall the representation is balance around the world and reflects the contributions to IUPAP and the level of activities in particular commissions from various areas.

The participation of women in needs to be assured.

July 1, 2005Vera Lüth IUPAP – C11 22

C11 Membership - Rules

Goals for Membership of C11:

- Expertise covering the main areas of Particle Physics research

- Broad representation geographically

- Is the current distribution optimal?

July 1, 2005Vera Lüth IUPAP – C11 23

Changes in C11 Membership

July 1, 2005Vera Lüth IUPAP – C11 24

July 1, 2005Vera Lüth IUPAP – C11 25

C11 Working Group on Authorship

MembersHiro Aihara, Lorenzo Foa, Jacques Chauveau, Dmitri Denisov, Hans-AkeGustafsson, Gregor Herten, Max Klein, Vera Lüth (chair), Pippa Wells, Jack Sandweiss, Steinar Stapnes, Daniel Whiteson, Taku Yamanaka

ChargeRules on AuthorshipCurrent Common Practice in HEPAlternate PracticesPractices in other Fields of ScienceEvaluationConclusions

July 1, 2005Vera Lüth IUPAP – C11 26

C11 Initiative: Authorship of Publications

As Collaborations supporting major experiments grow, authorship of publications is becoming more and more of an issue.What is the impact of growing Authorlists ?

they do not appropriately credit those who have contributed mostthey include names of many who are not very knowledgeable about the contents of the publicationthey do not allow others to identify those most knowledgeablethey lead to absurd publication and citation records

C11 formed a Working Group with following chargeExamine situation, explore alternate solutions, formulate guidelines?

WG has discussed and explored and discussedCurrent practices in HEP and other fieldsPotential modifications and alternatives to membership=authorshipInterim report submitted to C11 for discussion – are we ready to bring this to HEP community ?

What are the next steps – Consensus will be impossible to achieve!

July 1, 2005Vera Lüth IUPAP – C11 27

WG on Authorship – Responsibility of Authors

Authorship should be limited to those who have made significant contributions to the concept, executions, or interpretations of the research. All those who have contributed in this way should be offered theopportunity to be listed as authors. Other individuals who have contributed and are not identified asauthors should be acknowledged.Sources of financial support should be disclosed.All authors share some degree of responsibility for a paper. Some coauthors have responsibility for the entire paper as an accurate, verifiable report of research, others may make specific limited contributions.All collaborations should have in place an appropriate process for members to review and ensure the accuracy and validity of the reported results, express critique and pose questions concerning the work.All members of the collaboration should be aware of and understand this process.

July 1, 2005Vera Lüth IUPAP – C11 28

Authorship for Scientific Publications

Being listed as an author not only represents a responsibility towards the published result it also represents recognition and credit for scientific accomplishments and thus is important forcareer development, i.e. hiring and promotions, continued support and funding for research by the home institution and funding agencies, andscientific discourse, i.e. readers should be able to identify those most knowledgeable about the published material, those who carrymost of the responsibility for the results.

July 1, 2005Vera Lüth IUPAP – C11 29

WG on Authorship : Types of Publications

Publications of physics analyses usually signed by all eligible members of the collaborations: Contributions to conference proceedings in the form of write-ups of an invited talk by an individual, usually representing the collaboration. Single AuthorPhysics notes: Most collaborations document physics analyses in great detail in internal reports prepared by a small group of scientists: Few selected authors Technical publications covering detector design, construction and operation, as well as advances in electronics, data acquisition,computing and software: Few selected Authors

July 1, 2005Vera Lüth IUPAP – C11 30

WG on Authorship : Common Current Practice

Currently, the larger HEP collaborations have 200 – 600 members. Authors are generally required to have been members and contributed to the experiment for at least six months or one year. Members may withdraw their name from a specific paper, but this practice is rare and not encouraged. Current policies reflect the high energy physics tradition that detector design, construction, and operation is performed by thesame team of physicists that also performs the analysis and jointly brings to publication exciting new results. Publications thus are the outcome of joint efforts by the collaboration, not just the few individual scientists who initiate and perform a specific analysis and arrive at the result. This practice is commonly used and acceptedQuestions:

Can this practice be extended to LHC experiments with 2000 collaborating scientists?Does this form of collective authorship meet the guidelines for authorship?How do we define significant contributions?

July 1, 2005Vera Lüth IUPAP – C11 31

WG on Authorship : Practices in other fields

ALICE at LHC:1000 scientists from 86 institutions. They plan to adopt the same practice as HEP

The LIGO Scientific Collaboration (LSC) 400 members from 41 universities. author list of scientific publications will include all members of the LIGO Scientific Collaboration with rights to the data. including engineers who contributed in a major way to the design, construction, or operation. LIGO has published eight physics papers, plus a larger number of technical papers signed by those involved in the particular work.

The Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) 200 scientists from 14 universities.

They distinguish four types of publications with different author lists: 1. scientific publications signed by those directly involved in the data analysis as well as any members of the technical team who built the telescope; 2. data release papers, same as other scientific publications, but a different team of scientists who analyzed the data; 3. technical papers signed by those directly involved in the technical work; and 4. follow-up papers on public data by a few authors with reference to SDSS.As of now more than 100 scientific publications have appeared in print, the typical number of authors varies between 30 and 50

The Human Genome Sequencing Consortium 2000 authors at > 100 instiutionsa variety of practices and members have reported that the responses have not always been positive. For some of the major publications 200 primary authors, selected from among the team leaders

July 1, 2005Vera Lüth IUPAP – C11 32

1st Alternative: Belle Practice

The Belle Collaboration 300 scientists from 56 institutions in 13 countries

Prior to the publication members of the collaboration are asked to confirm their authorship by responding to the following

I have read this paper and I agree with its contents - please include me in the author list;I have read the paper, I do not agree with its contents - please do not include me in the author list;I have not made sufficient contributions to this paper - please do not include me in the author list.

Belle allows for up to three primary authors who will be listed first, in the order chosen by the analysis group. While 90% of the first 30 publications had an alphabetically ordered author list, only 10% of the most recent 30 papers had authors listed in alphabetical order. This practice meets the approval of Belle members!

July 1, 2005Vera Lüth IUPAP – C11 33

Belle Practice: Number of Authors vs time

July 1, 2005Vera Lüth IUPAP – C11 34

Belle Practice: Selection of Authors

July 1, 2005Vera Lüth IUPAP – C11 35

2nd Alternative – Partition of Collaboration

Partition the collaborations into 10-15 consortia, probably along the lines defined by analysis working groups (AWG), with individual scientists participating in at least one, in some cases two, and in exceptional cases several working groups. AWGs specialize in different areas of physics, develop common analysis tools, meet regularly, and report progress and problems. AWG leaders interact frequently with the central physics coordinator, the computing and software teams as well as the detector operation teams. The federated oversight by the collaboration as a whole through its publication board and analysis coordinators remain the same.A sign-up for authorship like Belle would allow individuals to decide case-by-case whether their contribution truly justifies authorship. Lead authors would be listed first A system like this could reduce the author list by a factor of 10 or more.

July 1, 2005Vera Lüth IUPAP – C11 36

Discussion of Alternatives to Current Practice

Belle Practice: sign-up for authorshipAuthors are more knowledgeable, take responsibility for publicationReduced authorlist with-out reglementation from aboveEmphasizing primary authors is attractive, leads to special recognitionPrimary authors allow readers to identify contactsEmphasis on analysis over contribution and innovation in software and hardware has not been a major issue

Partition of Collaborations in Physics Analysis ConsortiaPartition along physics topics exists, and would be a way to reduce authorship The active participation of more than a 100 -200 scientists in the preparation of a publication is probably not practical anywaywould coupling to authorship lead to friction and competition, neglect of common tasks?A longer list of primary authors would allow for recognition of also those who made technical contributions or consulted on physicsWould the partition be de facto a restriction in authorship, not a voluntary sign-up?A selective authorship may apportion credit in a more balanced, but less uniform wayMany collaborators are engaged part-time and do not actively participate in the whole diverse physics program

July 1, 2005Vera Lüth IUPAP – C11 37

Conclusions

At this time, all existing collaborations have rules in place – some already for many years – that regulate membership and authorship. Thus a change of a traditional way of dealing with authorship isconsidered painful, and in the eye of many unnecessary, if not damaging to the spirit of the collaboration. C11 of IUPAP cannot establish rules and expect the community to accept them.It can at best raise conscientiousness and outline some proposals and guidelines. The working group suggests that C11 distribute a questionnaire together with this interim report to the large collaborations and major research laboratories. The purpose of such a questionnaire is to sample the community’s response to various options for authorship discussed here.

July 1, 2005Vera Lüth IUPAP – C11 38

Questionnaire on Authorship

Q1: Do you consider the alphabetic listing of all members of thecollaboration the best way to appropriately credit those who contributed to the published research?Q2: Would you support a proposal to list in non-alphabetic order the names of up to ten or even twenty selected scientists and have the names of the remaining authors recorded in alphabetical order in a file accessible electronically.Q3: Would you support a proposal by publishers to have only thenames of two contact persons printed above the name of the collaboration, and have the names of the remaining authors recorded in alphabetical order in a file accessible electronically?Q4: Would you consider a sign-up as practiced by Belle the best way to identify and appropriately credit those who contributed most to the published research.

July 1, 2005Vera Lüth IUPAP – C11 39

Questionnaire on Authorship

Q5: Would a reduction in the number of publications in which you are listed as author affect you and/or critically impact the support you and your colleagues receive from your home institution and funding agency?Q6: Would you agree that the practice of listing primary authorsfirst is an effective way to make author lists and citation indices a more useful record of scientific accomplishments?Would you agree that a partition of the large collaborations into smaller physics research groups focusing on selected topics Q7: is an effective way to organize research activities while maintaining the support for common software and hardware?Q8: could also be an effective way to establish authorship

July 1, 2005Vera Lüth IUPAP – C11 40

July 1, 2005Vera Lüth IUPAP – C11 41

-

Farewell and Thanks to Uppsala - LP-05

An Excellent Smørgasbrod of physics

A flood of new scientific results

Superb facilities, organization, and support by the Uppsala team under the leadership of Tord Ekelof

Many thanks –you all made this a memorable event!

July 1, 2005Vera Lüth IUPAP – C11 42

http://ichep06.jinr.ru/

Farewell –See you in Moscow @ ICHEP-06