Phoenix science results, Beginning with December 2008 AGU meeting Options

[elakdawalla]

I figured it was time for a new thread, since we finally seem to be getting some science results out of Phoenix. The press release should be out shortly.

First numerical result I've heard was given by Peter Smith at today's press briefing at AGU: TEGA found that the soil is composed of 5% calcium carbonate, which is a significant result.

Hopefully more will hit the Web soon -- post here when the links go up!

--Emily

[Guest_Zvezdichko_*]

Dear friends,

I'm sorry if my question comes off-topic, but I don't know about a better place to ask. My question is - are there any copyright issues if I decide to use graphics and charts publishes on the website of NASA in my own scientific articles in a peer-reviewed journal?

Thank you in advance...

[Deimos]

My question is - are there any copyright issues if I decide to use graphics and charts publishes on the website of NASA in my own scientific articles in a peer-reviewed journal?

Usually, the materials presented on the NASA and phoenix.lpl.arizona.edu public sites are copyright-free. Other sites, maybe, maybe not. They usually have a credit associated with them that must be passed on (essentially, part of the proper citation). You cannot transfer copyright to any journal--which may be a stumbling block--since you do not have copyright. Look for any license info at the sites; the best option is to get things through planetary photojournal, so you know they are "released" products.

That said, it's risky. You generally don't know what was done to make the chart, what simplifications were done for public accessibility or to make a specific point that was important at the time but is now irrelevant. Things that were not the emphasized result may be less accurately portrayed. You don't know where PIO simplified or changed something to make it "better" if less accurate. Even with images, significant processing may have been done (or conversely, may be appropriate but not done) and you may not know what that was. Depending on the point being made, that may or may not be important. [I recently tried using the released uncalibrated RAC images of the struts to look at the so-called "droplets"--they are useless and misleading compared to the PDS images.]

It is especially risky using this info for a major point. Obviously publishing your discovery of perchlorate based on the charts would be bad. But even where you are firmer moral ground (ie, showing charts as evidence of the NASA discovery) you are on shaky scientific ground. Little or nothing on those sites has been peer-reviewed. Peer-review is happening. Some results may be reversed (note--this is not deliberate foreshadowing, just a general statement of the process). Most editors and many reviewers will be aware of these risks. Frankly, you should be sure they are if you do such a thing, so that they go into it with their eyes open.

There is a further reputation risk--people who prepared a chart will justly feel a certain sense of entitlement to publish the information in it, and to draw any conclusions that may be drawn from it. Once they have published, you may find their analysis incomplete and build upon it. But, for instance, to discuss implications of the pH measurement, or the TECP measurements, or many other things, you would be directly competing with the papers now being written by those who made the measurements, who may have the same ideas--or better ones--even if they didn't say them in a press release.

The best path is to wait for publications. 4 papers have been submitted to Science and several are about to start the long journey through JGR. Sorry if this seems overly pedantic or over-the-top compared to your intended use. But many of us recall that the first peer-reviewed publication of hematite concretions on Mars was not by a MER team member, it was based on press conferences. This caused some reluctance to release certain details of Phoenix discoveries; further incidents could restrict the information flow from this kind of mission.