Ground Rules

For the past several months I've been negotiating with Caltech for "ground rules" governing use of AXA data by professionals with the intent of publishing results partly based on AXA data. If you're not interested in the history then you may skip down to the section, Most Likely Final Version of Ground Rules.

Submissions of data to the AXA after June 7 have been subject to the following agreement for professional use of the data.

There is a general consensus among the active observers contributing to the AXA that "we want our data to be used for scientific purposes." Therefore, on the web pages devoted to each BTE there will be links to data files that have been converted to a standard format by the AXA webmaster. Downloading of these data files is unrestricted. However, at the time that any of these data files is seriously contemplated for use in a publication we require that the observer be notified, either directly or via the AXA webmaster. There are two reasons for this. First, the observer is in the best position to know the strengths and weaknesses of the data, and it is to everyone's benefit that the data not be over-interpreted. Second, every successful observation represents a lot of work, all of it unpaid, and it is only fair that the observer be aware of when his data is being used and for what purpose. To the professional astronomer interested in using the data may I suggest that you will want to learn such things as whether the amateur's computer clock is automatically adjusted, whether JD time tags do indeed correspond to mid-exposure time, whether the filter set is photometric versus "pretty picture" - and many other things that relate to the presence of "systematics" that may exist in the amateur data that are not likely to exist for professionally produced data.

The biggest payoff for an observer would be to learn that their data has contributed to the discovery of another exoplanet using TTV, for example, or that it was used to discover a ring system. So, for anyone who is incorporating AXA data files in a study that appears to be leading to a scientific publication please notify the observer either directly or via the AXA webmaster. At that time we can establish communication with the observer to negotiate an appropriate acknowledgement. It is important that an observer be aware of any publication that makes use of his observations and that he be given an opportunity to comment on their use before publication.

I recently asked if the following would be acceptable (in anticipation of restrictions that will apply to data files transferred to Caltech's NStED/AXA):

Downloading of amateur data files is unrestricted. However, in recognition of the fact that none of this data has been described in a publication it is recommended that when amateur data is under serious consideration for use by a professional astronomer the amateur observer should be contacted by e-mail. There are two reasons for this. First, the observer is in the best position to know the strengths and weaknesses of the data and it is in everyone's best interest that the data not be over-interpreted. Second, every successful observation represents a lot of work, all of it unpaid, and it is only fair that the observer be aware of when that data is being used as well as the intended purpose for its use. Whereas published data includes a description of specific idiosyncrasies that may be present, unpublished amateur data should be described in the same way before it is used. For example, a user should want to know answers to the following: Did seeing vary significantly during the observing session, were clouds noted at any time, was it windy enough to shake the telescope, are time tags for mid-exposure or exposure start, are the time tags based on an automatic computer clock setting program or is the computer clock set manually, was the filter photometric or "pretty picture," etc. Any potential problems with observations would be included in a publication of the data so it is prudent for any user of unpublished data to want answers to the same questions. If the amateur data are in fact included in a publication it is requested that the observer be acknowledged by name, and if appropriate that a brief description of the hardware be included.

Caltech also wants a version that is much shorter to be included in the data file header lines to improve its visibility. The following is under consideration:

"Downloading of amateur data files is unrestricted. However, since these data are unpublished it is recommended the observer be contacted prior to use of data. The observer may be aware of specific aspects of the data that should be taken into consideration when interpreted, such as seeing, clouds, wind, scintillation, clock-setting procedures, optimized photometry apertures, etc. If these data are to be used in a publication, it is requested that the observer be acknowledged by name along with a brief description of the hardware used."

Also, my NStED contact and I are essentially agreed upon the following longer version that will appear on its own web page. A link to it will be present on each data page.

"Downloading of amateur data files is unrestricted. However, since none of these data are described in a publication it is recommended that the amateur observer should be contacted by e-mail (see header of light curve for contact information) prior to the use of the data in publications. There are two reasons for this:

First, the observer is best familiar with all aspects of the observations and can provide guidance in the interpretation of the data. Whereas publications (and associated data) include a description of specific data idiosyncrasies that may be present, unpublished amateur data should be described in the same way before they are used. For example, a user should want to know answers to such questions as the following: Did seeing vary significantly during the observing session? Were clouds noted at any time? Was it windy enough to shake the telescope? Are time tags for mid-exposure or exposure start? Are the time tags based on an automatic computer clock setting program, or is the computer clock set manually? Any potential problems with observations would be included in a publication of the data so it is prudent for any user of unpublished data to want answers to the same questions.

Second, due to the (unpublished) work that went into conducting the observations the observer ought to be made aware when their data are used along with the intended purpose for its use. If the amateur data are in fact included in a publication, it is requested that the observer be acknowledged by name along with a brief description of the hardware used."

State of Caltech/AXA Negotiation

When the NStED review board agrees to this I will be asking AXA contributors for comments. I apologize for these many versions. The inclusion of amateur data files in Caltech's IPAC computer NStED/AXA archive has never been done, so it's taking time for them to respond to my requests for provisions that I think are necessary to safeguard amateur interests. A review board that meets weekly has to approve everything, and so far I believe that they have been reasonable - but it does take time. I appreciate your patience. After my negotiations with Caltech are "final" I will send an e-mail to the active contributors asking for comments and possible approval. This web page section is meant to keep AXA contributors informed. Feedback is welcome at any stage of negotiations.

Return to AXA home page.

WebMaster: B. Gary. Nothing on this web page is copyrighted. This site opened: 2008 August 23. Last Update: 2008 August 23