Latest revision as of 09:33, 12 September 2022

Attendees: Larissa, Tim, Eloi, Johannes, David, Moritz, Olaf

Protocol: David, some supplements added by Johannes (tagged as JS)

Presentations

Eloi: live presentation of new actualization/sync functionality for CRAN packages
Johannes: live presentation of formula search/mathsearch progress: now also running on production
David: brief update: File upload fixed, improvements of backup tools
Larissa: brief update: progress finalizing ZBMath import and integrating Docker importer in portal-compose
Moritz: MW update to version 1.39 (prefer WMF branches!)

Presentation (Tim): First proposition (by Tim, Moritz, David) for the structure, objectives and methods
Moritz:
- it is important to determine evaluation criteria; e.g. FAIR data principles
- a contribution of the article should be an evaluation methodology that could be applied in other contexts, too
Details will be discussed in the next weekly (20.6.)
First TODO: have a look at the list of data platforms in the appendix
Discussion of authorship of scientific articles, how the order is determined, etc.
JS: Short outline of recommendations and guidelines for good scientific practice by DFG/ZIB/Uni Göttingen/Leibniz Institutes which all conclude that usually all authors are responsible for the content of a publication,- and some of them (Uni Göttingen) also state that the order of authors should be a common decision of all authors. All the recommendations can be accessed publicly on the corresponding websites.
Tim/Moritz: David takes lead and responsibility and is therefore first author in accordance with "lived practice" (this may be changed if he does not fulfill his responsibilities)
JS (on the question of Tim if anybody has objections to the previous statement): I agree with current responsibilities as long as there is the possibility for anybody to get first author according to their contributions to the review-publication.

@@ Line 28: / Line 28: @@
 * First TODO: have a look at the list of data platforms in the appendix
 * Discussion of authorship of scientific articles, how the order is determined, etc.
-* JS*: Short outline of recommendations and guidelines for good scientific practice by DFG/ZIB/Uni Göttingen/Leibniz Institutes which all conclude that usually all authors are responsible for the content of a publication,- and some of them (Uni Göttingen) also state that the order of authors should be a common decision of all authors. All the recommendations can be accessed publicly on the according websites.
+* JS: Short outline of recommendations and guidelines for good scientific practice by DFG/ZIB/Uni Göttingen/Leibniz Institutes which all conclude that usually all authors are responsible for the content of a publication,- and some of them (Uni Göttingen) also state that the order of authors should be a common decision of all authors. All the recommendations can be accessed publicly on the corresponding websites.
 * Tim/Moritz: David takes lead and responsibility and is therefore first author in accordance with "lived practice" (this may be changed if he does not fulfill his responsibilities)
+* JS (on the question of Tim if anybody has objections to the previous statement): I agree with current responsibilities as long as there is the possibility for anybody to get first author according to their contributions to the review-publication.
 <span id="epics"></span>