[Ncep.list.wwatch3.discussion-group] WWIII Developer Meeting Minutes -- Wed Nov 16 (IMPORTANT info inside)

Perrie, William William.Perrie at dfo-mpo.gc.ca
Fri Nov 18 12:21:09 UTC 2016

Hi everyone, 

In my thinking, the citation should be "WW3DG (2016)", and then a full listing of the contributors in section 1.4. 

Best regards

-----Original Message-----
From: ncep.list.wwatch3.discussion-group-bounces at lstsrv.ncep.noaa.gov [mailto:ncep.list.wwatch3.discussion-group-bounces at lstsrv.ncep.noaa.gov] On Behalf Of Fabrice Ardhuin
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2016 10:45 AM
To: Li, JianGuo; 'Jessica Meixner - NOAA Affiliate'; ncep.list.wwatch3.discussion-group at lstsrv.ncep.noaa.gov
Subject: Re: [Ncep.list.wwatch3.discussion-group] WWIII Developer Meeting Minutes -- Wed Nov 16 (IMPORTANT info inside)

Dear all,
There was quite a bit of effort in setting up the WAM group, and still the WAM 1988 paper is cited as "WAMDI (1988)". When you read the paper there is a *  with a footnote and the list.

In our case we can have the full list of contributions in section 1.4 , and if people want to cite it, have it cited as "WW3DG (2016)".
Ideally people would cite the features they are using by citing all the papers that contribute to their set-up.

I was the one who uploaded the manual on ResearchGate because I think this is a way to get the right exposure to the work. Theirs is an automatic system so it does require authors.... the same is not true for a paper. I can update the way the authors appear there if needed (I've just moved Hendrik first... it should be updated soon) but I made it clear that the stuff should be cited (if ever) as we agreed - and I'll update that to whatever is the final consensus.

Also I encourage Henrique, who at some point was tipped to lead the publication of a proper paper in a journal like 'Computers and Geosciences" to actually make a formal paper about the updates in going to v4.18 and/or v5.16...  But as far as counting citations and the like, a NCEP report, however fine, does not count so much (at least for the evaluation of research as done today in France).

So I think that having the details in section 1.4 is very important (so that people can contact the proper authors of different pieces). How we want this to be cited really depends on whether we want to emphasize more the different contributions or the group effort.
In the end I know that we do not get funded for that group effort, and I can understand Jian Guo's argument. Still, it is easy to underestimate the group effort and work in making everything work seamlessly, a lot of which was done at NCEP. Now that Hendrik is not at NCEP anymore, it is a little odd to have the thing as Tolman et al., although we have an immense debt to his dedication... so I think we need the group first.

If we put group + list of people in citations, it will often be cropped as "XX et al." as happens to papers with long list of authors, e.g. "Dee et al. " for the ERA-Interim as cited in

So, if counting citations on reports matter for some of the contributors, we could add the list of authors in the bibtex entry ... 
but it seems to me that there is more risk that it will get deformed to anything possible.


                       Fabrice Ardhuin
directeur, Laboratoire d'Océanographie Physique et Spatiale
   chair, Lab. of Ocean Physics and Satellite oceanography UMR 6523 CNRS-IFREMER-IRD-UBO, IUEM  http://www.umr-lops.fr/
   Ifremer, ZI Pointe du Diable, CS10070, 29280 Plouzané
                 Phone: (33) 2 90 91 55 20
  Groupe de recherche sur les états de mer: http://wwz.ifremer.fr/iowaga

Ncep.list.wwatch3.discussion-group mailing list
Ncep.list.wwatch3.discussion-group at lstsrv.ncep.noaa.gov

More information about the Ncep.list.wwatch3.discussion-group mailing list