Include measures of communication and transparency

[maxcampb]

Suggested by many as a primary interest.

• [ ] We should make it clear who are coauthors on papers, which should be based on standardised contribution to paper. This could help us choose the order of authors, and allow people to manage their expectations throughout the course of the projects (Seb).
• [ ] Look at the CRediT contribution system @maxcampb
• [ ] Show clear goals from the project and who is responsible for what
• [ ] CB to make comments on this Idea @cbrown5
• [ ] Include Meeting and communication structure (different among projects and users e.g. "when needed basis @bholg ", or "regular basis Olivia, Jay, Alyssa").
• [ ] Make expectations clear
• [ ] Clear roles, and ensure expertise and capacity to take on tasks (Laura)

[cbrown5]

This sounds like topic for lab discussion. I have my own mental heuristics for this, but if others are confused then its important to check in about it again. The standard systems end up not working in my experience, because there are often exceptions. Here's a good one: There's a movement against 'helicopter science' as being unethical (working in a place without local involvement). But locals often aren't qualified to comment directly on a paper. So on one hand we consider it unethical not to involve them, but on the other we're being told they technically haven't contributed enough to be named.

[maxcampb]

Interesting. Sounds like a tricky ordeal. I'll migrate this issue over too a discussion.

• [ ] Lab meeting to discuss this