back to begin of document --- next section
This document attempts to delineate the way in which D0 is managed. It may be considered to be a set of guidelines by which the present Spokespersons intend to operate.
The management structure proposed for the future is outlined in the following sections. The current structure which has been in existence for a long time and which is independent of the phase of D0 (taking data, building etc) is the executive committee and the spokesperson(s). In addition to this there are committees and groups whose importance and relevance depend more on current priorities in D0.
In this document we propose no change to the executive committee, but do propose to change its name to Institutional Board which reflects more its character. In addition to this we propose that there be a chairperson and deputy chairperson of the Institutional Board. We also propose to institute a small Advisory Council.
In sections 2, 3 and 4 the election/appointment and role of these bodies of governance is described. Section 5 describes the way in which the Spokespersons expect to manage the D0 Experiment.
Section 6 gives a description of how committees are used and which are standing at this time. Section 7 makes a proposal for how to proceed to implement the plans contained in this document.
In addition to this document there are a series of documents which describe rules and guidelines for "Selection of the D0 Spokesperson ", "Authorship of DZero Publications","Publications", "Speakersbureau tasks",etc. These documents are all parts of how we do business in D0 and are in principle part of this document. For completeness the currently existing documents have been attached as Appendices I through VI.
back to begin of document --- previous section --- next section
For an outline of the proposed management see the section on management.
back to begin of document --- previous section --- next section
The membership of the Institutional Board is by designation: one person from each individual institution except Fermilab for which there will be two members.
The term of service is determined by the designated institution.
At any given meeting at which the Institutional Board may be called on to vote, a person other than the Institutional Member, may be designated as a replacement.
In general, the D0 Institutional Board is advisory to the Spokespersons with two exceptions:
It is expected that the Institutional Board with a Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson will take active control of the institutional aspects of D0. These include New Membership of the Collaboration and the process of Selection of Spokespersons (likely by appointment of an Election Committee as in 1993 and 1996).
The Chairperson, along with the Advisory Council (and the Spokespersons), is responsible for the agendas of Institutional Board Meetings.
The Institutional Board Chairperson can request presentations on and discussion of specific issues relating to the collaboration or experiment. The results of such discussions may be recorded and passed to the Spokespersons as formal advice.
The Chairperson is responsible for the production and publication of minutes of the Institutional Board Meetings.
back to begin of document --- previous section --- next section
The Council consists of seven members as described above. The two junior and three at-large members are elected by the Collaboration. (Institutional Board chair and deputy chair elections are described in the IB governance document.) Every collaborator on the current masthead is eligible to serve on the Council. A junior member is required, in addition, to be within 6 years of the receipt of PhD or equivalent degree at the time of election.
back to begin of document --- previous section --- next section
At any time there are a number of aspects of D0 which require an explicit management structure. These are time dependent structures. When we were taking data, it was important to have a leadership of the operational aspects of the experiment. This is no longer needed and has been de facto retired. The Trigger Certification Board was an important part of our operation, this is now retired. For some time before and after the start of data taking it was important to emphasize the groups working on Object ID (jets, electrons, muons). Until 1990 there was no D0 Upgrade and there were neither Upgrade Project nor Upgrade Software Groups. These currently constitute very important aspects of the D0 Experiment.
back to begin of document --- previous section --- next section
An important aspect of the management of a scientific collaboration, indeed of the scientific process in general, is the ability and need to subject ourselves to critical peer review. The use of review committees both ad hoc and standing is highly desirable. Such review committees or boards will be formed when needed and go out existence when their task is completed. Examples of these are editorial boards or subject/detector specific review committees. However there are some other committees which are permanent, but whose membership varies with time. At present these committees are:
The Authorship Committee provides direct advice on the inclusion of individuals as Authors of D0 Papers. The Guidelines are fairly explicit and are laid out in Appendix III. In principle the Authorship Committee is advisory to the Spokespersons. In practice the Spokespersons have never rejected a clear recommendation from the Authorship Committee. In some cases when the Authorship Committee has not reached a clear conclusion, the Spokespersons have adjudicated.
The Speakers' Bureau:
back to begin of document --- previous section --- next section
We propose:
back to begin of document --- previous section --- next section
Rules on Authorship of DZero Publications
General Guidance
The general criterion for determining authorship on any publication is whether that collaborator is a "serious" participant in DZero. It is expected that all such members of the Collaboration will be authors of every physics (as opposed to a technical) publication. Withdrawing individual names because of a lack of close involvement in some particular aspect of the analysis will tend to undercut the impact of any publication and is therefore to be strongly discouraged.
Normally, authorship of physics papers will be restricted to physicists, postdocs, and graduate students who satisfy the criteria listed below. These conditions can be taken to define what is meant by being a serious member of DZero, and can thereby serve as guidelines for authorship.
Specific Criteria for Authorship of Physics Papers
To become eligible for authorship on a physics publication, a scientist is expected to contribute "significantly" to DZero for one year prior to the submission of that publication. Clearly, senior physicists, who have teaching or other obligations, cannot be expected to devote the same number of hours to DZero that graduate students or postdoc can. Nevertheless, senior scientists, as well as their junior colleagues, are expected to contribute their full research time for one calendar year, half time for two years, etc., in order to qualify for active authorship status. In this context, significant contributions to DZero can be defined as comprising at least 12 hours per week devoted to the type of tasks described in items (a)-(e) below. Only through explicit approval by the Spokesperson(s) will authorship be granted to any individual who contributes mainly in the analysis of data or in the kind of tasks that are described in items (f) or (g).
To maintain good standing after the initial year (that is, to remain an active author), all scientists on the experiment are expected to continue to contribute the major fraction of their research time to DZero (but, again, at least 12 hours per week) in any of the areas described in the items (a)-(g). We wish to emphasize that such contributions, whether for establishing or for maintaining eligibility, need not be made only at Fermilab, but can also be satisfied at the home institution.
Service Tasks
Physics Tasks
Formation of the Committee on Authorship
The Spokesperson(s) will establish a Committee on Authorship to help maintain the Authorship List, with the proviso that any controversial issues shall be channeled to, and be adjudicated by, the Spokesperson(s). Choosing from a broad spectrum of the Collaboration, the Spokesperson(s) shall nominate the Chair and six members of DZero to serve on the Committee on Authorship. The Executive Committee of Dzero shall be apprised of the composition of the Committee on Authorship at the annual midyear meeting of the Collaboration.
Operating Procedures
Technical Publications
Technical publications shall not be constrained by the rules discussed above. Specific papers may be initiated by some subset of the Collaboration, or through the instigation of the Spokesperson(s) or Institutional Board. Such papers shall be prepared under the direction of a Coordinator, appointed by a Spokesperson. The Coordinator will inform the Committee on Authorship and the Spokesperson(s) of the author list and title of that paper. Contributions to the contents of the work will serve as the primary grounds for determining authorship. Normally, authorship will not be restricted to physicists. Also, when funds for the reported research are provided through DZero, or if the presented results are based on work performed by members of DZero, the author list will be followed by the phrase "for the D0 Collaboration".
Ordering of author lists
Names of authors shall normally be listed in alphabetical order (according to family name), with institutional affiliations indicated by suitable superscripts. Papers submitted to conference proceedings will normally give only the speaker's name, and affiliation, followed by the standard phrase "for the D0 Collaboration" (with no need to specify the current institutional make-up). For technical papers, with relatively short author lists, an alphabetical listing (by family name), and grouping by institution (again, in alphabetical order) is allowed, but the standard format is preferred.
Narrow or Short-Term Contributions
When any individual (either an experimenter or a theorist, who is not on the Authorship List for DZero) makes a significant contribution to any specific analysis, that person can be considered for authorship on a publication that is based on that work, and on any directly related publications that follow. Specific decisions will be left to the Spokesperson(s) and the Committee on Authorship. Short-term visitors, who contribute to the general operation and technical well-being of the experiment will be entitled to authorship of one paper for every two months spent full-time on DZero.
Acknowledgments
A lesser contribution by a physicist outside of the collaboration, e.g., by a theorist, to a journal publication, will, with approval of the Spokesperson(s), normally be recognized by an acknowledgment. Otherwise, the practice of naming specific individuals is to be discouraged. Assistance from any group outside of the authors' list may also be acknowledged. For example, we expect that the contributions of the staff at Fermilab is likely to be acknowledged routinely. In addition, every DZero publication should acknowledge the support of any and all appropriate funding agencies.
"Retirement and Severance Benefits"
Normally, each active experimenter who leaves DZero will be entitled to remain on the author list six months for each year of active service; however, independent of the years of service, all benefits will normally terminate three years after departure from the experiment. Thus, for example, a person who has worked four years on DZero, can leave the experiment for two years, and then resume active status without getting out of step. For scientists who left DZero prior to the start of the publication of physics analyses in the professional journals, the date for the initiation of their "benefits" will be January 1, 1994.
A Word on Service
For each of its active authors, an institution must provide, on average, at least 15 hours of service per week (per person) in categories (a)-(e) listed above. It is the responsibility of the institutional Contact Person to assure that this happens, and that the information documenting this is transmitted biannually (January and July of each year) to the Spokesperson(s).
A Final Word on the DZero Masthead
We also wish to clarify the distinction between the DZero Authorship List, which is the subject of these Rules, and the DZero Masthead, which is outside of our purview. The Masthead, contains the list of all active as well as quiescent members of the Collaboration, with quiescent meaning that they are expected shortly to enter active status. Thus an individual who has just left the experiment can be on the Authorship List, but not be a bona fide active member of DZero, and therefore not be on the Masthead, and, vice versa, a person can be active (or quiescent), and on the Masthead, but not qualify as yet for authorship.
Submitted on Behalf of the Committee on Authorship on May 4, 1994
B. S. Acharya, T. Diehl, S. Eno, G. Eppley, R. Madaras, R. Partridge, J. Warchol, and T. Ferbel (Chair).
(As amended and adopted unanimously by the Executive Committee on June 2, 1994)
back to begin of document --- previous section --- next section
There have recently been questions about the proper interpretation of the D0 Authorship Rules as to the exact requirements for new D0 authors. The following interpretation has been agreed to by the D0 Spokesmen and the D0 Authorship Committee.
Ron Madaras, for the D0 Authorship Committee
In order to become a new D0 Author, one must satisfy the following three criteria. These criteria are based on the D0 Authorship Rules (D0NEWS, June 7, 1994). The three criteria are:
It is recognized that there will be many variations in circumstances, and that some interpretations of individual cases will be necessary. Any person not fulfilling the above criteria can appeal to the Authorship Committee for an exemption if he or she thinks there are mitigating circumstances.
back to begin of document --- previous section --- next section
Guidelines for Editorial Boards and Publication Submissions
(P. Grannis/H. Montgomery; revised: June 21, 1996)
EB's are created by the spokespersons following a request by the physics conveners. Suitable documentation should exist on the analysis at the time of setting up the EB.
The EB is charged with approving an analysis. Approval means that the results can be shown in talks at seminars and conferences, and can be shared with physicists outside the collaboration. The EB can define subsets of results related to an analysis for approval, with other aspects reserved for more work and later approval. For each such approval, there must be a Physics Note available which gives the details of the analysis in sufficient detail that a member of the collaboration can be expected to understand the results. The EB is also charged with approval of draft publications before circulation to the collaboration for review, after the collaboration review, and after comments are received from the journal referees and have been incorporated by the author(s).
The steps, in more detail are these:
back to begin of document --- previous section --- next section
Short Instructions for Editorial Boards and Publication Submissions
(P. Grannis/H. Montgomery; Oct. 29, 1996)
(See EB Guidelines and Paper submission for more details)
The EB Process:
For Publications:
back to begin of document --- previous section --- next section
The D0 Speakers Bureau tries to look after the collaboration's needs in matching people to talks. It has meetings approximately once a month to nominate speakers for conference and workshop talks. Seminars and colloquium are not arranged by the Speakers Bureau, unless a request for a speaker is made to it. Please inform the D0 secretary (currently Elaine Moore) about such talks for the record.
For major conferences where abstracts and/or conference proceedings are required, a member of D0 will be appointed by the spokesperson to see that the abstracts and/or papers are written in a timely manner and coordinate the submission of the D0 abstracts to the conference.
There is a folder in D0NEWS -- "UPCOMING CONFERENCES AND SPEAKER BUREAU" which contain announcements, abstracts, etc. on conferences. It can be found on WWW: http://www-d0.fnal.gov/~d0conf click here to go there
Volunteers who want to give a conference talk on some aspect of the experiment should let the SPEAKER'S BUREAU (contact the current chairperson) know as well as the convenors of the appropriate Physics Group, if a physics area is specified. Please mention any special reasons why you should give the talk.
Speakers will be selected based on the following criteria:
............... The above criteria area not in order of importance.
A file will be kept of Speakers/conf/talk titles/dates, which will be available to the collaboration.
Conferences and D0 speakers lists can be found on D0 WWW and in the project disk area for conferences on FNALD0:: To find these lists do:
The "Keeper of the Plots" keeps plots up to date and they are available on the CONFERENCE disk in subdirectories under CONFERENCE$HROOT:[PLOTS]. He/she is responsible for getting approved plots from conference speakers, with comments if necessary, which can then be used for D0 seminars and general talks.
back to begin of document --- previous section --- next section
There are 5 classes of talks by D0 speakers:
back to begin of document ---- previous section --- next section
There are several kinds of situations to consider. First, Case-1, is the more straightforward one of a single senior individual (with or without a small accompanying group), not previously involved in D0, who decides to join colleagues already on the experiment. Another, Case-2, is the situation where there is a major increase in participation by a member institution. There is a third category (Case-3) for admission of senior colleagues. This comes about when a member of the Collaboration accepts a senior position at another institution without a previous connection to D0, and proposes collaboration under the new affiliation. Because of the expertise and overall value that such an individual might have to D0, admission in this case might be given special consideration.
Our standard procedures for admission of new groups into D0 were left somewhat vague in order not to needlessly tie the hands of our Spokesmen in their negotiations with future partners. It is the prevailing view within the Collaboration that flexibility is of essence in defining any expected contributions, especially in international negotiations. This is presumably why we have never spelled out any specific conditions for admission into D0, but vote on the matter once a proposal is brought before us. A vote is usually taken at a meeting of the IB (formerly Executive Committee), and, following a full discussion of the situation, a 2/3 majority of those present and voting assures the formal acceptance of the new institution. Previously, in cases where less than 2/3 of the Institutional Representatives favored admission, a full solicitation of the Collaboration was conducted via email after the meeting. Again, a 2/3 favorable response of available D0 votes was required in order to admit the new institution. Depending on circumstances, the acceptance into D0 can be provisional, as would be natural in situations where financial support of the proposed research was not completely assured. However, such designation of acceptance is purely internal to D0, and the institution in question has full privileges of membership, and, in particular, immediate listing on the D0 Masthead, and rights to authorship, as stipulated in our standard procedures (see above). A provisional membership is usually accompanied by a target date at which a transition to full membership should be considered.
For Case-1, when a group recommends that one of its senior colleagues join D0, that colleague should speak with the Spokesmen, and indicate both the level of anticipated involvement, and any specific region of interest in the experiment. Following a favorable turn in this discussion, the Chair of the IB would send any available information on the individual to the IB Reps via email, with the recommendation that the person be invited to join the experiment. Barring any explicit requests for specific information or reconsideration, or expressions of serious concern from members of the Collaboration, the Chair of the IB would request the Representative from that institution to introduce the new colleague to the Collaboration at the next meeting of the IB. If there are objections raised to the admission of the new senior scientist, the Chair of the IB will request the Representative from that institution to present the case for discussion at a special closed meeting of the IB. Following that discussion, the usual 2/3 vote would gain that individual's entry into the Collaboration.
Case-2 corresponds to a situation somewhere between Case-1 and a request by an outside group to join D0. We will define the line of demarkation between Case-1 and Case-2 by an increase of more than two, or more than 50%, of the senior physicists in that D0 group. (Of course, an increase in the number of graduate students, research associates, or junior faculty or staff, is not relevant to these considerations, and should always be encouraged. By a senior physicist, we mean a faculty member beyond the level of Asst Prof, or a research physicist at least at the level of scientist.) It is expected that in this situation that the Spokesmen would become involved in more extended negotiations, and, once these are completed, they would present a proposal to the Chair of the IB, who would pass it on to the Institutional Representatives for comment via email. A Representative of the institution in question would present the case for additional discussion and possible action at the next meeting of the IB. Again, a 2/3 vote would be required for ratification.
Case-3 would be presented to the IB by the colleague about to transfer to the new institution. As in the other cases, prior to the presentation, that individual should discuss the proposal with the Spokesmen, and submit to D0 as clear and as detailed a picture of the planned involvement as is possible. Again, a 2/3 vote would assure formal entry into D0. The Collaboration should be provided with an update on progress towards the original goals of the proposal after a six month period.
Because we can expect periodic, justified, minor modifications to any such rules, the above statements are to be taken primarily as guidelines for action.
back to begin of document --- previous section --- next section
Each voting institution, or some combination of institutions, of D0 shall designate one of its members to serve as its official Representative to the Institutional Board of D0 (IB). This person will serve as the liaison between the Institution and the D0 Spokespersons, and between the Institution and the Institutional Board. Representatives should attend meetings of the Institutional Board, be the E-MAIL contacts for the Institution, and inform D0 of the status and changes in the personnel at their Institutions.
Duties include:
A. Meetings of the Institutional Board
1. Prior to any meeting of the Institutional Board, the Representative should poll the group on matters that are listed on the Agenda, and be prepared to offer views, or to vote on the admission of proposed new institutions, or on matters of policy, if notice of such a vote is given in the Agenda.
2. When an institutional representative is not able to attend a meeting of the IB, another person from that institution who can attend should be designated as the Representative. If no such person can be found, the opinions and votes of that group should be transmitted to the Chair of the IB.
B. E-MAIL contact
1. Informational messages from Spokespersons, the Chair of the IB, or from other sources, pertaining to issues being considered by the IB, should be relayed promptly to other group members of that institution.
2. When an institutional vote is requested, the IB representatives should poll the members of D0 from their institution and return the vote in a timely manner.
3. When a statement on policy is requested from the institution, the IB Representative should discuss the matter with group members and circulate a draft-response. When the response is approved by a majority of the members, it should be sent to the requestor.
C. Institutional Information on Personnel
1. Requests for additions to the D0 Masthead should be sent to the D0 Authorship Committee and to the D0 Spokespersons. The names, with E-MAIL and normal mailing addresses, and phone numbers, should also be given to the D0 secretary and entered into WHOD0 on the D0 Web page.
2. Requests for removal of a person from the Masthead (and eventually from the Authorship list) should be sent to the D0 Authorship Committee. This should include the person's starting and ending dates on D0, and the date when the person's name should be removed from the D0 Authorship list, which is based on the formula given in the Rules on Authorship. Also, information should be provided whether that person has accepted a new position. The latter should also be sent to the Spokespersons, the Chair of the IB, and to the D0 secretary, for maintaining records of the Collaboration.
3. Requests for additions to the D0 authorship list should be sent to the D0 Authorship Committee and to the D0 Spokespersons. Such requests should include the names of the individuals, their starting dates on D0, a description of their research and service contributions, and the weekly hours spent on each. (See "Specific Criteria for becoming a D0 Author" located above.)
4. Information on changes in the status of graduate students, postdocs and faculty associated with the institution, should be sent to the Spokespersons, the Chair of the IB, and to the D0 secretary. This should include dates spent at D0, thesis topic and thesis advisor (for graduate students), employment information on postdocs who have left the institution, and information on promotion of faculty. Updates should be sent to the D0 secretary upon request.
5. A survey of research and service activities for each member of the institution should be provided to the Spokespersons upon request.
back to begin of document ---- previous section
Proposed Criteria for Papers with Limited D0 Authorship
(B. Klima, N. Graf, V.D. Elvira, J. Butler, K. Frame, R. Partridge, H. Greenlee, H. Schellman - Chair)
Introduction
One of the main goals of the D0 Collaboration is to disseminate any gained knowledge, but this has to be done in a manner that assures that the work of D0 collaborators is properly acknowledged. The Collaboration encourages its individual members to write review articles, to publish more general papers on methods and phenomenology, and to participate in appropriate workshops. Nevertheless, because papers with limited authorship reflect on the entire Collaboration, a review of such work should take place to assure that D0 guidelines are maintained uniformly. The purpose of any such review is then primarily to minimize any possible misunderstandings over the origin of ideas discussed within the Collaboration, and to assure that D0 data and resources are used appropriately and are acknowledged properly.
Guidelines
The committee recommends the following guidelines for papers with limited authorship.
o Results based on any analysis of new data from D0 (i.e., not previously available) shall not be published in a document with limited authorship.
o Any proposed paper with limited D0 authorship that relates to an ongoing analysis, or that uses D0 resources, must be reviewed to establish that it is, in fact, suitable for publication as a paper with limited authorship. (Examples of D0 resources would include Monte Carlo programs written or maintained by D0 collaborators, original methods and ideas discussed in physics analysis groups, and any significant processing time on D0 computers. The resources can originate from contributions by long-term D0 personnel or short-term visitors.) The purpose of such review is purely to establish that the work is suitable for publication with limited authorship, and not to determine the quality of its scientific content.
o Contributions to conference proceedings by individuals on behalf of D0 (i.e., with the standard identification of "for the D0 Collaboration") are not regarded as articles with limited authorship. These are subject to normal review by appropriate groups and their conveners, who assure accuracy of content and the proper acknowledgement of all collaborative contributions.
Criteria
Because each paper with limited authorship is likely to raise different issues, there will be a wide range of criteria that will likely come into discussion. As guidance, we provide some examples.
Factors that would favor a paper with limited authorship would include situations where:
o Contributions from the general resources and members of D0 are quite small (judged to be negligible). For example, the work could have just as easily been completed by a member of either CDF or CTEQ, without benefit of any discussions within the D0.
o The paper is not limited specifically to the physics program at the Tevatron. For example, it might discuss a statistical technique applicable to many areas of physics. Nevertheless, even under circumstances where limited authorship might be appropriate, it is essential to acknowledge any significant contributions by an analysis group to the development of that technique.
o The paper is a review of a subject, based on previously published results, and does not divulge any new measurements or anylses from D0.
o The paper is a contribution to a Summer Study or Workshop (e.g., Snowmass), dealing with future directions at the Tevatron or in particle physics.
Factors that would not favor a paper with limited authorship would include:
o Papers that use any unpublished D0 data are generally inappropriate for limited authorship. Nevertheless, providing certain global distributions for illustrative purposes might be reasonable, but should be cleared with the Spokespeople.
o Any work that is strongly coupled to an ongoing D0 analysis.
o Any work that might be appropriate for a section in a forthcoming D0 paper.
o A work where the number of collaborators involved is quite large, and authorship by the entire Collaboration would therefore be more appropriate.
o The work made significant use of D0 resources.
o There is substantial disagreement over appropriate authorship that cannot be resolved in an equitable manner.
Review procedure
The review should consist of the following steps:
o The authors of the proposed paper inform the Spokespeople that a limited authorship paper is being prepared. At this point, the Spokespeople may judge that the paper is clearly suitable for limited authorship, and no further review is required.
o If the Spokespeople feel that the case for limited authorship has merit, they appoint an independent Coordinator for the ensuing discussion. This would be similar to the procedure used for technical papers.
o The authors present their arguments to the relevant physics groups.
o The Coordinator posts on D0 News (general) the intent to publish a paper with limited authorship, and provides a deadline for comments. This posting should provide the contents of the paper and the proposed list of authors. Comments by the Collaboration would be sent both to the authors of the proposed paper and to the Coordinator.
o The Coordinator presents the received comments to the Spokespeople or to their designee.
o The Spokespeople (or their designee) inform the authors of the decision.
All effort should be made to avoid unnecessary delays in the above procedure.
Intended Results
The outcome of the review may range from a recommendation that the paper be authored by the full Collaboration, or, for the case of technical papers, by a subset of the D0 Collaboration, and therefore (in either case) undergo normal review, to a recommendation that the paper is only minimally related to D0, and indeed suitable for independent limited authorship. In the latter case, there may still be accompanying suggestions for minor modification in scope, authorship or acknowledgements, but the contents would not be subject to further review by the Collaboration.