Relationship between _publ_author.id and _audit_author.id

[Horst Puschmann]

True and agreed.

There is no reason not to have a global section ahead of the data block for
complete submissions in CIF format.

So there is no need to have anything to do with _publ_ in the data block
itself.

Horst


On Fri, 7 Aug 2020 at 11:02, James Hester <jamesrhester at gmail.com> wrote:

> There is a bit of history to the publ_author category which those who have
> been around longer than I might add to. Back around 1995 Acta C accepted
> CIFs as the entire publication, that is, a CIF file was sent in and
> transformed into a publication with no further text from the authors.
> Fairly good idea at the time as it avoided messing around with document
> formats and lowered the barriers to submission as far as possible with the
> idea of getting all of those structures buried in drawers reported.
>
> I believe pure CIF submissions are still possible for some IUCr journals
> including Acta C. The "publ" categories therefore capture the information
> relevant to publication such as author list, abstract and so forth, and
> should only be used if the CIF is the primary source of the publication
> itself.
>
> On Fri, 7 Aug 2020 at 19:02, Horst Puschmann <horst.puschmann at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Horst
>>
>> (*)  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 at 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.
>>>
>>> James.
>>> --
>>> T +61 (02) 9717 9907
>>> F +61 (02) 9717 3145
>>> M +61 (04) 0249 4148
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> coreDMG mailing list
>>> coreDMG at iucr.org
>>> http://mailman.iucr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/coredmg
>>>
>>
>
> --
> T +61 (02) 9717 9907
> F +61 (02) 9717 3145
> M +61 (04) 0249 4148
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.iucr.org/pipermail/coredmg/attachments/20200807/77ced358/attachment-0001.html>