Discussion List Archives

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Relationship between _publ_author.id and _audit_author.id

  • To: james.r.hester@gmail.com, Distribution list of the IUCr COMCIFS Core Dictionary Maintenance Group<coredmg@iucr.org>
  • Subject: Re: Relationship between _publ_author.id and _audit_author.id
  • From: Horst Puschmann via coreDMG <coredmg@iucr.org>
  • Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 10:01:56 +0100
  • Cc: Horst Puschmann <horst.puschmann@gmail.com>
  • DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc;bh=N8L0+oRCExByKlNnOv4WnzAx98HdUbBkVVg8eD/iGB0=;b=sSZPMbGdzIh0CVdftGdvZBtQ/2ZAo1UwWlQffyIKyzqgyzzX3LfT28pluuDqKwDk8blev5JWnHaE6rxh7GRYuqcA2lkIVKoD2RmJK1SW7SzTLsIL/+UPIJjFK82Si02tUtBazm5Vh7MyR3h3RvNWzj35+Nn6PVO+sO/xylMXMWKwGS8u7PxX81xCuJ6pzIWE9DrHUWkAENNopfawlDLO4ZT84JJt8IQxQ4dSCdOW+k5alyLDYekPKZgNW1WMR/HgmFrCxjL0/gMmDxOpq5f2Dl71Q7V7VfeSyDGsjVR1Aas70augjh+rXRbDNyNV/mWxnN0xZEQyQNBUrsfW0ZZ1Qg==
  • In-Reply-To: <CAM+dB2cBeWOX988SATDuv9tLGQYB2TW+LAgUx5mLwJM7q2C69A@mail.gmail.com>
  • References: <CAM+dB2cBeWOX988SATDuv9tLGQYB2TW+LAgUx5mLwJM7q2C69A@mail.gmail.com>

I think that this is an important question and I am with James on this one: I would go with number (4) -- these lists are independent (*). Conceptually, I don't think that (3) is correct.

In fact, I would go a step further and say that the _publ_author loop should not be permitted in a data block.

At the point of structure origination, nothing is known (for certain) about if and where the work might get published.

Assembling the _journal_author list is the very last step and can only be done after a paper has been accepted for publication, at which point nothing in the data block(s) should be touched.


(*)  There are many cases where *none* of the audit_authors end up on the papers!

On Fri, 7 Aug 2020 at 03:28, James Hester via coreDMG <coredmg@iucr.org> wrote:
Dear Core DMG,

Related to my previous email today on author roles is the question of the relationship between "publ_author" and "audit_author".  Recall that publ_author lists authors on a publication that is based on the CIF file, and is used by the journals. audit_author lists authors associated with the production of the data. There are 4 possibilities that I see:

(1) Audit author is the root source of author identifiers: all authors in publ_author also appear in audit_author

Objection: some authors on the publication may be associated with work that is outside the crystallographic experiment and so not properly included in audit_author

(2) Publ_author is the root source of author identifiers: all authors in audit_author also appear in publ_author

Objection: Some contributions recorded in audit_author may not rise to the levels required for ethical inclusion in an author list

(3) A third "author" list is created that becomes the canonical author list, from which authors in audit_author and publ_author are drawn

Objection: duplication of information

(4) audit_author and publ_author are formally independent lists, but can link authors if required either via a new dataname pointing into the other list, or indirectly via e.g. OrCID identifiers.

My preference is for (4) as it recognises both the different underlying scopes of the two author categories but also allows common authors to be identified, and is minimally disruptive for existing software. 

If we had our time again, (3) would be the correct approach and we would not duplicate address information in publ_author and audit_author. However, making that change now would be very disruptive.

Please comment.

T +61 (02) 9717 9907
F +61 (02) 9717 3145
M +61 (04) 0249 4148
coreDMG mailing list
coreDMG mailing list

[Send comment to list secretary]
[Reply to list (subscribers only)]