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:

• ​AGU Town Hall on Data Citation
• ​"How to Cite a Data Set" from IPY
• ​"Catalog Checklist" (for people publishing catalogs)
• ​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 ​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?