(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. == Background: == * [http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/Interagency_Data_Stewardship/2009AGUTownHall AGU Town Hall on Data Citation] * [http://ipydis.org/data/citations.html "How to Cite a Data Set" from IPY] * [http://sdac.virtualsolar.org/catalogs/catalog_checklist.txt "Catalog Checklist" (for people publishing catalogs)] * [http://www.agu.org/pubs/authors/policies/data_policy.shtml "AGU Data Policy"] == 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? * If discussing specific events: * Have I given the time and coordinate of the event(s)? * Have I provided an [http://solarnews.nso.edu/2009/20090801.html#section1 identifier for the event(s)]? * 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?