Thanks for providing your side of the story!
Both the guy who fixed the last screw of a detector and the one who designed an analysis have the right to sign the publications.
That's it! And I do not really understand why. Is it because it is an extraordinary equipment and knowledge of this equipment is so limited, so much so that even fixing a screw can be listed as an author in a paper?
This information can be traced down without the citation counts. The main key players are the quality of the works, the recommendation letters and how the researcher sees himself or herself in the field (the research statement and project).
Glad to hear that! :-)
PS2: thanks for advertising my post!
You are welcome! Great to have you in steemit!
I forget to tell one important detail: you really need thousands of people to run and monitor these huge detectors.
That is how the LHC collaborations have fixed their rules. One provides service tasks for the collaboration and one can sign the papers. At the end, you need both people to monitor the detectors and people to analyze data, don't you?
But what you cannot do at the end is to compare LHC experimenters to other field scientists in therms of citations. This is just wrong.
I am not comparing. It may be clear to you how LHC collaborations are like because you know the rules. But people outside the LHC (like me, for e.g.) might not entirely know or understand the rules. And yes, now that you mention about thousands of people running and monitoring the LHC.
Then, it may be possible to list the LHC as an outlier outside of the science norm.
But, still, it really raised a lot of eyebrows....
I can understand that. I do no know how are the rules outside particle physics. Probably not that well :)