PLEASE NOTE: This is a survey preview, submitted answers are NOT saved. If you wish to fill the survey out, click here.

ECFA survey "Recognition of individuals in large collaborations"

Survey ended.

Dear Colleague,

This is a survey on the "recognition of individuals in large collaborations" as issued by ECFA, the European Committee for Future Accelerators.

ECFA acknowledges the importance of correctly recognising individual achievements and affirms the challenges therein when dealing with scientific collaborations of between one hundred and many thousands of researchers. The aim of this survey is to verify the current status of the recognition of individual achievements, with the ambition to provide recommendations as input to the update of the European Strategy for Particle Physics.

Please take 10 minutes for this survey, by which you help us to obtain useful information. All individual and personal information is considered confidential. You can only fill this survey once.

Please help us by as many questions as you can, those marked with a star are required before submission.

We first like to obtain some general information. Please note that the survey is anonymous.

What is your nationality?

100 characters remaining

What is your gender?

100 characters remaining

What is your age?

100 characters remaining

Do you have working experience since you obtained your PhD? If yes, how many years:

100 characters remaining

What is your current position?
Required answer

100 characters remaining

What is your main discipline?
Required answer

100 characters remaining

To which experiment are you affiliated? Indicate your main activity:

100 characters remaining

For which reason individual recognition is important to you? Please divide 30 coins over the following options:
Required answer

Assign 30 coins
My next job application or promotion
0
30
My scientific reputation
0
30
Being treated fairly
0
30
Personal well-being
0
30
Individual recognition is not important for me
0
30

The next questions deal with specific topics on individual recognition

Conference talks:

Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Prefer not to say
The collaboration guidelines for speakers at conferences allow me to be creative and demonstrate my talents
Conference proceedings are important for my academic career
Overall, I am allocated a fair number of conference talks on behalf my collaboration
Overall, I am allocated a fair number of talks at major conferences on behalf of my collaboration
I worry about financial issues for conference talks

Which authorship system does your collaboration deploy?

Collaboration papers:

Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Prefer not to say
For me it is important to be included as author of all collaboration-wide papers
I support the alphabetic listing of all members of the collaboration for each publication
Additional to the simple alphabetic listing, a sign-up system is to be added where each member of the collaboration can take the responsibility to sign a publication
Compared to the alphabetic listing, a better alternative would be a system using a first-author group
Compared to the alphabetic listing, a better alternative would be to have pre-defined publications that initially motivated the experiment to be signed by all members of the collaboration, and other publications with a shorter list of authors

What is your order of preference for authorship of your collaboration. Please drag the options to reflect your preferred order:
Required answer

  • 1. Alphabetic list of authors
  • 2. Alphabetic list of authors, but with sign-up system for each paper
  • 3. First-author or first author group system
  • 4. Both pre-defined publications with all members of the collaboration and also other publications with a shorter list

Assigned responsibility in scientific collaborations:

Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Prefer not to say
I perceive the assignment of positions with responsibility in my collaboration (e.g. conveners) as fair
I perceive that the profiles of positions with responsibility are well known outside my collaboration
I perceive that the profiles of positions with responsibility are well known outside the particle physics community

Awards and prizes:

Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Prefer not to say
I perceive the process of nominations for awards as sufficiently transparent and accessible in my collaboration
I perceive that the profiles of these awards are sufficiently clear and advertised to be appreciated adequately outside the collaboration
I perceive that the profile of these awards are sufficiently clear and advertised to be appreciated adequately outside the particle physics community

Reference letters and guidance:

Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Prefer not to say
I trust evaluators when they select peers inside or outside my collaboration to assess me
I trust the assessment when the individual (that is evaluated) selects the authors of the reference letters himself/herself
I obtain important advice from my supervisor to make progress in my career

Technical contribution (hardware, software, operations, etc):

Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Prefer not to say
I perceive that my technical contributions get adequate recognition in my collaboration
I perceive that my technical contributions get adequate recognition in the particle physics community
I perceive that my technical contributions get adequate recognition outside the particle physics community

Internal notes:

Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Prefer not to say
Scientific notes on analysis methods, detector and physics simulations, novel algorithms, software developments, etc. would be valuable for me as a new class of open publications to recognise individual contributions
Internal notes (supporting a publication) should be made public

Open Data:

Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Prefer not to say
The eligibility to use Open Data should be equal for members of my collaboration that produces the Open Data compared to non-members
Members of a collaboration should have equal publication opportunities using Open Data from their collaboration compared to non-members.

Now follows a section of questions on general issues on the topics we addressed above.

According to me the following aspects are important to verify the success of a scientist:
Required answer

not at all important
not so important
neutral
important
very imporant
Do not know
Prefer not to say
Being selected for conference talks
Authorship of collaboration-wide physics papers
Being contact author for a publication
Authorship of internal notes
Authorship of few-author papers with results using Open Data
Number of citations received on few-author papers
Receiving recognition for innovative work via an award
Receiving recognition for technical work via an award
Receiving recognition for hard work via an award
Selection as a convenor or equivalent
Excellent letters of reference

According to me the following aspects are the most important ones to verify the success of a scientist. Please drag the options to reflect your preferred order (for the first 3 options):
Required answer

  • 1. Empty slot
  • 2. Empty slot
  • 3. Empty slot
  • 4. Being selected for conference talks
  • 5. Authorship of collaboration-wide physics papers
  • 6. Being contact author for a publication
  • 7. Authorship of internal notes
  • 8. Authorship of few-author papers with results using Open Data
  • 9. Number of citations received on few-author papers
  • 10. Receive recognition for innovative work via an award
  • 11. Receive recognition for technical work via an award
  • 12. To receive recognition for hard work via an award
  • 13. Selection as a convenor or equivalent
  • 14. Excellent letters of reference

Collaboration matters:
Required answer

Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Prefer not to say
Your individual contributions are recognized well among the members of your collaboration
The high-energy physics scientific community outside my collaboration is provided with sufficient information to assess me
The non-HEP scientific community is provided with sufficient information to assess me
There are sufficient opportunities for me such that my individual creativity, innovation and efforts are recognisable outside my collaboration
Coherence across collaborations in their procedures to recognise individual achievement is important in particle physics
Coherence across disciplines in their procedures to recognise individual achievement is important between particle physics, astroparticle physics and nuclear physics
I perceive no gender bias in the recognition of individual achievements

To conclude, we give the opportunity to give your opinion on these issues in two open questions

Which aspects or actions do you observe to be effective in your or other collaborations? Please give best-practice examples.

250 characters remaining

Do you have additional suggestions on the topic of recognition of individual achievements?

250 characters remaining