Last modified 7 years ago Last modified on 04/23/15 12:09:56

(this is a snapshot of the AuthorChecklist from 2015/Apr/23, as I'm going to edit that one so it's more cronological)

Checklist for Authors of Science Articles in Solar Physics

TODO: clarify which of these apply to raw data vs. intermediary data vs. final results / published data. Also, try to clean this up so it's more cronological : (1) where you got the data from, (2) how you reduced the data, (3) other processing applied.


Goal :

Ensure that research is reproducable.

Secondary goal:

Provide attribution for the data/archives, and software or other tools, so they can justify their continued funding.

Policy :

  • Data used in articles should be made publicly available.
  • If the data is not already available from an archive, it should be included as a supplement to the article.
  • Observations should be sufficiently described to allow reviewers or other scientists to easily verify the article's claims.

Checklist for Submitters:

  • Have I described the data that was used in this research?
    • In terms of the instrument / observatory / observatory group used?
      • And the specific dataset that was used? (eg, used the PI provided Level 2 data vs. the L0 data that you processed yourself)

Note : working on recommendations for data providers to provide consistent names or identifiers to each dataset.

  • In terms of day/time being analyzed?
  • In terms of location being analyzed (if not 'full disk')
  • In terms of any subsetting done of the data?
    • If using a lower cadence than the original data:
      • What cadence was used ('1 per minute' vs. '1 per day')
      • How the cadence aligned (eg, '1 per day, first image after midnight UT' vs. '1 per day, closest to local solar noon')
    • If using only a specific observing mode or filter:
      • 'total brightness' vs. 'polarized brightness' for instruments such as SECCHI/COR2
      • Specific wavelengths from SOHO/EIT, STEREO/SECCHI/EUVI, SDO/AIA, etc.
      • AEC vs. non AEC for SDO/AIA.
    • If using cutouts from the original data
      • eg, "200 arcsec patch centered on AR10943" vs. "200 arcsec wide by 400 arcsec high centered on ... xSun, ySun" -

‘... at 400 xSun,-600 ySun’ ; ‘... at 45W60N’

  • If using reduced resolution images
    • The size of the resulting images, and how it was reduced.
    • '1024x1024 images, 4x4 binned' vs. '2048x2048 images, sampled using the lower left'
  • In terms of where I obtained it from (from which archive, at what time)
    • Specified which specific version of the data you used, if the archive provides more than one.
      • eg, 'daily movies' vs. 'level 0 FITS files' vs. 'level 1 JPEGs'
  • Have I described the processing that I did to the data for analysis?
  • Have I acknowledged software and tools used ...
    • to find & obtain data (HEK, VSO, EGSO, AstroGrid, Solar Monitor, etc.)
    • to visualize data (Helioviewer, JHelioviewer, SolarWeather Browser, etc.)
    • to process the data (SolarSoft, PDL, SunPy, IRAF, etc.)

  • If there were models or catalogs used:
    • Have I provided a reference to the article in which they were introduced?
  • Is the data available for others to review?
    • Is the data available from an archive online, or have I included it for submission as a suplement to the article
    • If I have significantly processed the data, have I included my data for submission as a suplement to the article?