Forum der Vereinigung der Sternfreunde

Hi all!

The publication policy for using the BESS and ARAS Spectral Databases are noted in the “Credits” of the BESS website as follows.
In 2013 IAC80 observers of the Wolf-Rayet campaign on Tenerife added spectra of Nova Del to the ARAS Spectral Database, assuming that their contribution would be appreciated in any later publication. However, only one year later a paper on Nova Del has been published by a professional group without any acknowledgements or co-authorship of the observers. The origin of the spectra had only been noted as "WR13x collaboration" in a respective table, which is a copy of the BESS entry. Now an amateur paper on gamma Cas appeared again without correctly acknowledging the BESS data source and the observers according to BESS policy. Ignoring this policy (which is basically a worldwide standard) disrespects the efforts of all observers involved. I mention this to remind everybody to sufficiently credit any external contribution when publishing results from BESS or any other source.

Thomas

Hi Thomas,

This is a common issue with amateur contributions generally. Have you
discussed this with the authors of the papers?

Note that the ARAS and BeSS databases are not connected and are completely
independent of each other. The BeSS database is a professional database of
Be star spectra only run by Observatoire de Meudon, to which both amateurs
and professionals contribute. The ARAS database is just somewhere for
amateurs to post their spectra for use by anyone. The terms of use are
different from those of the BeSS database for the ARAS database which can be
found here.
http://www.astrosurf.com/aras/Aras_Data ... ge.htm#Use
Nova Del is not a Be Star of course and as far as I can see, the Nova Del
spectra collected by the WR team were submitted to the ARAS database with
the observer as "WR13x-collaboration" so without further information, any
potential user would only be able to accredit the team.

Robin

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Eversberg
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 7:52 AM
To: fg-spek-admin@vdsastro.de
Subject: [fg spektroskopie] Data policy standards for publications

Link zum neuen Beitrag:
http://spektroskopieforum.vdsastro.de/v ... 444#p27870

Hi all!

The publication policy for using the BESS and ARAS Spectral Databases
are clearly noted in the “Credits” of the BESS website.
In 2013 IAC80 observers of the Wolf-Rayet campaign on Tenerife added
spectra of Nova Del to the ARAS Spectral Database, assuming that their
contribution would be appreciated in any later publication. However,
only one year later a paper on Nova Del has been published by a
professional group without any acknowledgements or co-authorship of the
observers. The origin of the spectra had only been noted as "/WR13x
collaboration/" in a respective table, which is a copy of the BESS
entry. Now an amateur paper on gamma Cas appeared again without
correctly acknowledging the data source and the observers according to
BESS policy. Ignoring this policy (which is basically a worldwide
standard) disrespects the efforts of all observers involved. I mention
this to remind everybody to sufficiently credit any external
contribution when publishing results from BESS or any other source.

Thomas

I also see that the observatory and observer fields were not completed in
the fits header of the WR13x team spectra making it difficult to trace their
origin. I now include my email address in the fits header of spectra I
publish so potential users have no excuse !

Robin

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Eversberg
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 7:52 AM
To: fg-spek-admin@vdsastro.de
Subject: [fg spektroskopie] Data policy standards for publications

Link zum neuen Beitrag:
http://spektroskopieforum.vdsastro.de/v ... 444#p27870

Hi all!

The publication policy for using the BESS and ARAS Spectral Databases
are clearly noted in the “Credits” of the BESS website.
In 2013 IAC80 observers of the Wolf-Rayet campaign on Tenerife added
spectra of Nova Del to the ARAS Spectral Database, assuming that their
contribution would be appreciated in any later publication. However,
only one year later a paper on Nova Del has been published by a
professional group without any acknowledgements or co-authorship of the
observers. The origin of the spectra had only been noted as "/WR13x
collaboration/" in a respective table, which is a copy of the BESS
entry. Now an amateur paper on gamma Cas appeared again without
correctly acknowledging the data source and the observers according to
BESS policy. Ignoring this policy (which is basically a worldwide
standard) disrespects the efforts of all observers involved. I mention
this to remind everybody to sufficiently credit any external
contribution when publishing results from BESS or any other source.

Thomas

Hi Robin! I do not know if this is common. At least for all publications where I am involved in this never happens. And as I said, it is a worldwide standard to carefully appreciate the work of others, especially if they volunteer. If we start neglecting this standard, we will loose the benevolence of our colleagues. I mean, the data have been collected during hard nights, potentially accompanied by a financial contribution...
Yes, I directly contacted the authors after realizing the paper in A&A. I got an elusive answer... I was really upset!
Yes, I know. That is the reason why I just mention the BESS guidelines and highlight the "worldwide standard". Especially as amateurs we should be careful not to loose potential data sources because of carelessness. And after all, it is a matter of respect!

Yes, because of that and because of my experience I will not upload original files to both databases and generally recommend not to do it.

Cheers, Thomas

Well, for me this is no excuse for using such data. The publisher knows that they are not his/her own and he/she has to find out their origin for accurate appreciation. Or he/she should not use them.

When still active in the professional domain, I and my colleagues always offered co-authorship for even single spectra contributed. And we still stick to this rule.

The same issue with the recent paper of Steve Shore on V339 Del.!!

Jose

On Jun 7, 2016 11:08 AM, "Thomas Eversberg" <fg-spek-convento@vds-astro.de> wrote:
Link zum neuen Beitrag: http://spektroskopieforum.vdsastro.de/v ... 444#p27874

> I also see that the observatory and observer fields were not

> completed in

> the fits header of the WR13x team spectra making it difficult to

> trace their

> origin.

Well, for me this is no excuse for using such data. The publisher knows

that they are not his/her own and he/she has to find out their origin

for accurate appreciation. Or he/she should not use them.

OK, that are now at least three recent incidents... (In fact, there are many more coming from the amateur side...). I can only hope that the organizers of the BESS and ARAS Databases read this and become active to avoid such misconduct in the future. Unlimited data access obviously communicates unlimited data usage. This is not funny considering the personal investment of observers.
Thomas

Hi Thomas,

For me data kept in a locked drawer has no value, but I am just an amateur
so my career does not depend on my name being on published papers. I do not
have enough skill or knowledge to turn data into useful science so I place
my spectra where they can be seen and am happy if someone makes use of it. I
agree it is disappointing when no credit is given which is why I try to make
it as easy as possible to be contacted. (Most of the time I find
professionals usually do this is any case to verify the quality of the
data.)

I take part in Pro-Am projects where the data is not widely published until
after publication, like those run through the Convento group but I also
enjoy the more open campaigns which I find more interesting with the added
real time communication between amateurs and professionals. The Nova Del
2013 campaign was a good example attracting many new amateurs and hundreds
of spectra. The effort Steve Shore put in to describing exactly what was
happening at each stage and steering observers was a model of how amateur
spectroscopists can collaborate with professionals and contribute to real
science. Not breaking down the WR13x collaboration into its individual
contributors is a regrettable oversight perhaps but as far as I am aware
individual single contributors have been credited

Cheers
Robin

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Eversberg
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 7:23 AM
To: fg-spek-admin@vdsastro.de
Subject: [fg spektroskopie] Re: Data policy standards for publications

Link zum neuen Beitrag:
http://spektroskopieforum.vdsastro.de/v ... 444#p27888

OK, that are now at least three incidents... I can only hope that
the organizers of the BESS and ARAS Databases read this and become
active to avoid such misconduct in the future. Unlimited data access
obviously communicates unlimited data usage. This is not funny
considering the personal investment of observers.
Thomas

Hi Robin,

I agree in part with you. However, if one goes to the observatory (in my case institutional) after a long working day just because one believes that his effort is helpfull in a certain investigation, so, one deserves credit!! I don't "buy" the AAVSO way of dealing with their observers and I fear that ARAS is following the same way.

Best,

Jose

On Jun 8, 2016 11:20 AM, "Robin Leadbeater" <fg-spek-convento@vds-astro.de> wrote:
Link zum neuen Beitrag: http://spektroskopieforum.vdsastro.de/v ... 444#p27891

Hi Thomas,

For me data kept in a locked drawer has no value, but I am just an

amateur

so my career does not depend on my name being on published papers. I do

not

have enough skill or knowledge to turn data into useful science so I

place

my spectra where they can be seen and am happy if someone makes use of

it. I

agree it is disappointing when no credit is given which is why I try to

make

it as easy as possible to be contacted. (Most of the time I find

professionals usually do this is any case to verify the quality of the

data.)

I take part in Pro-Am projects where the data is not widely published

until

after publication, like those run through the Convento group but I also

enjoy the more open campaigns which I find more interesting with the

added

real time communication between amateurs and professionals. The Nova

Del

2013 campaign was a good example attracting many new amateurs and

hundreds

of spectra. The effort Steve Shore put in to describing exactly what

was

happening at each stage and steering observers was a model of how

amateur

spectroscopists can collaborate with professionals and contribute to

real

science.  Not breaking down the WR13x collaboration into its individual

contributors is a regrettable oversight perhaps but as far as I am

aware

individual single contributors have been credited

Cheers

Robin

-----Original Message-----

From: Thomas Eversberg

Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 7:23 AM

To: fg-spek-admin@vdsastro.de

Subject:

Hi Jose,

I agree the current AAVSO policy is not suitable. There is a much higher
investment in time and effort for an amateur taking a spectrum compared with
making a brightness measurement and deserves to be credited to the
individual. I do think the ARAS approach to this, which I believe was based
on what I suggested for the Eps Aur campaign, is reasonable though
"Observers contributing a significant amount of data or whose data are
pivotal to the findings of the paper should be included as co-authors."
The problem is enforcing this. It would be a shame if we have to make the
databases like this only open to members who agree to obey the rules.

Cheers
Robin


-----Original Message-----
From: Jose Ribeiro
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 12:56 PM
To: fg-spek-admin@vdsastro.de
Subject: [fg spektroskopie] Re: Re: Re: Data policy standards for
publications

Hi Robin! Why a shame? These are the rules and users must obey them anyway! Maybe it is a matter of reminding everybody by, e.g., klicking a respective button so that they are, well, reminded. And if they don't, they should be banned from using the database. That's it! As long as this is not established, I can not recommend using BESS and others. Because of our bad experience (now confirmed again, see gama Cas), SASER already watches its database and all users. And they are right!
Cheers, Thomas

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Eversberg
Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2016 4:39 PM
To: fg-spek-admin@vdsastro.de
Subject: [fg spektroskopie] Re: Data policy standards for publications
Hi Thomas,

Because free access maximises the probability of publication, encourages new
amateur observers and advertises the capability of amateurs to a wider
professional audience. It would need to be tested of course but I suspect
this more than offsets the odd occasion when data are used without credit
and the net effect is more papers co-authored by amateurs. I agree though
that authors may sometimes need to be encouraged to behave more
appropriately when using other peoples data.

Cheers
Robin

Hi Robin!
Without rhetoric: Maybe you are generally right and we should simply donate our data for free and without expectations. Then ARAS could waive its credit rules entirely and we can hope that we can increase the amateur spectroscopy community. I have no clear answer, of course! But at a later point you then need to decide if this strategy is still valid or if we need rules again (when is the community big enough?). I prefer to give guidelines and respectful credits to those who had worked for a paper instead of hoping for other advantages like an increasing community. Overall I wonder if it is not easier to simply accept the rules by those who benefit from the data so that everybody knows for what he/she is doing the work. It is a matter of respect, I would say.
Cheers, Thomas

On one side I think whoever uploads observations to a database should have something to say about how it could be credited (imagine the difference between single observer vs campaign/collaboration observer, teams, etc). But the database should also confirm that is within decency. however, the repository should then be responsible to clearly state how to credit the data to whoever downloads it. The repository can have a set of "default rules" (this is better said as "guidelines", or "crediting ethic", to allow fine-tuning as requested by the ones who upload observations).
If, in order to correctly credit someone, there are such subjective terms as "pivotal importance", "abundant contribution", "reputation of the contributor" or whatever, then the repository should be responsible for evaluating that! (it is not the amateur that will determine if his work was pivotal, and thus it should not be the professional convincing us of how pivotal it is). As an amateur, I am super happy with taking a spectrum of just-about-anything, and that is "pivotal" enough for me! <Hurray!!> A professional may disagree even on how possibly relevant that might be, obviously! So, whoever decides the "pivotalness" should be an "independent" person...

Institutional science communication offices suffer from a similar problem, where institutions expect that every single paper their researchers produce should instantaneously spawn a news article on every newspaper, regardless of how "pivotal" the work is or how (un)interesting that might be for the readers...

_________________
Fil.

Making every member of a team a co-author can also have some curious consequences. I am a co-author of some papers even though I did not contribute any data and was not even aware that a paper was being written Sometimes we just have to accept that we live in an imperfect world !

Cheers
Robin

A lot of Thesis advisors, instrument builders, etc, also end up as authors of things they contributed no observational data. That means you were part of a team, whose policy was to credit every contributor in such manner. That was discussed and respected (on the campaigns I took part in). I will not brag myself of being an expert in astrophysical winds that collide near stars in face of having my name in a paper in an important journal! But the respective comforting smile is in my discrete face, as I know I helped.
This is why they invented "resumés" and "job interviews" separately

_________________
Fil.

Hi Robin! So what? For our last Teide campaign all observers have been and still will be co-authors. Plus some professionals delivering no data point but supporting the campaign in certain fashion. Ended up in 49 authors - no problem! As Fil said, it's a matter of decency - and following the rules. But I said all this already...
Thomas

I'm feeling tired to see my efforts being ignored at least in 3 papers, eps Aur, V339 Del and pi Aquarii. The last one we used the IAC80 in 2011 under my organization, were we observed pi Aquarii each night!!

Now I only observe with teams that respect my efforts. Hopefully there are a lot of work to be done:-)

On Jun 10, 2016 11:14 AM, "Thomas Eversberg" <fg-spek-convento@vds-astro.de> wrote:
Link zum neuen Beitrag: http://spektroskopieforum.vdsastro.de/v ... 444#p27905

Hi Robin!

> Making every member of a team a co-author can also have some curious

> consequences.

So what? For our last Teide campaign all observers have been and still

will be co-authors. Plus some professionals delivering no data point

but supporting the campaign in certain fashion. Ended up in 49 authors

- no problem! As Fil said, it's a matter of decency - and following the

rules. But I said all this already...

Thomas