[fitsbits] Publishing FITS conventions on arXiv?

[Lucio Chiappetti]

Picking up another IAU FITS WG backlog for this semi-holiday moment ...

On Sun, 4 Dec 2011, Rob Seaman wrote:

> A major feature of the FITS standard is that it is published in the 
> refereed literature [...]

Indeed.

> FITS is now also defined by the registered FITS conventions that are 
> layered on top of the standard itself.  [...]

"Defined" is perhaps too strong a word.
The registry page http://fits.gsfc.nasa.gov/fits_registry.html says

"These conventions are not necessarily recommended by the IAU FITS Working 
Group for reuse in new applications. The registration process is mainly 
designed to ensure that the documentation about the existing FITS 
convention meets a minimum level of completeness and clarity. A separate 
and more rigorous review process is required before a FITS convention is 
endorsed by the IAUFWG and is approved as part of the FITS Standard."

> Few, in any, of these have been published in any sense.  A recent trend 
> in astronomy has been to use the arXiv preprint archive as a publication 
> mechanism

"Publication" to me goes in general along with "refereed". For standards 
and other conventions refereeing is not necessarily the way, but there is 
an equivalent "approval" (for instance you surely have worked with 
internal reports for a project, bearing an "approved by" on the cover).

In this respect the FITS standard is "approved" by the IAU FWG. The papers 
related to the standard are also "refereed" in the classical way but the 
referee is not expected to change anything critical (which would mean 
going baclk through the formal approval procedure).

So far I've been very skeptical about publishing on arXiv (or trusting) 
something which is not:

  - a paper just accepted for publication by a refereed journal or even
    a (less restrictive) conference proceeding book (or site)
  - a (not reserved) internal report approved by whoever interal authority
    (the example quoted seems to fall in this legitimate category)

It is true that arXiv has a larger visibility than any project specific 
site. Hopefully also a longer duration.

It seems to me that if anybody has a convention which has been approved 
internally, then one has the right to publish it on arXiv or elsewhere.

So far the IAU FWG registry is just "taking notice" of the existing 
documentation (of which arXiv may be one form), and comments on its 
completeness and clarity, but does not willingly enter in the details of 
the way the convention is defined and works. Also because usually it 
receives as inputs something which has already been in use in real life 
for quite a time.

So it is not clear to me whether the FWG (or another appointed body ?) 
should take the burden of doing a more thorough refereeing before an arXiv 
publication (or e.g. even in recommending a template for such 
publications).

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lucio Chiappetti - INAF/IASF - via Bassini 15 - I-20133 Milano (Italy)
For more info : http://www.iasf-milano.inaf.it/~lucio/personal.html