Re: measuring affiliation

From: Jean-Yves Le Meur <Jean-Yves.Le.Meur_at_CERN.CH>
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 09:09:47 +0200

        I also agree with Keith and Les.
        For info, in High Enery Physics, papers may have a few thousand
authors (large HEP experiments papers are signed by all collaborators, up
to 1,800) and we keep for each document the complete authorship. It is
mandatory as the most usual query is on author names (to build
bibliographies)... Names and affiliations are automatically extracted from
full text files to avoid the looong typing.

        JY Le Meur

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006, Jeffery, KG (Keith) wrote:

> All -
> I agree with Les; in the old days when some systems allowed only 3
> authors then - because of alphabetic ordering - the team leader of a
> particle physics experiment who obtained a Nobel Prize was not on the
> author list in the system!
> I'm afraid it is necessary to include all authors, possibly with some
> method of highlighting those belonging to the institution at the time
> Keith
> -----Original Message-----
> From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
> Behalf Of Leslie Carr
> Sent: 11 August 2006 15:52
> Subject: Re: measuring affiliation
> On 11 Aug 2006, at 12:09, Wichor Bramer wrote:
> > I'm not too keen to include these in our repository. what's your
> > opinion on this? Should only articles where al least the first author
> > is affiliated to the institution be entered. Where can we draw a line
> > (if we can).
> > How much
> > author affiliation does one need?
> That's a matter of policy, but it would seem to be a strange and
> arbitrary policy that required a particular percentage of authorship to
> be allowed in.
> Many papers (especially in some disciplines) have large author lists:
> you could inadvertently find yourself discriminating against some
> departments in your institution.
> ---
> Les Carr
Received on Mon Aug 14 2006 - 12:32:04 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:48:27 GMT