I know it was found independently found by Edward, Claude also found it as well. I had made some changes to my paper now.
We canât but try to set the record straight:
-
There are no SDSS data for this object and data on Fig.1 have been edited from my post with a fake caption âSDSS object Idâ.
Tract, Mags and Photoz canât be pulled out from images. -
my GZ message to Sonya has been edited too.
1 Like
aside from the fact I am completely lost in who has done what, when and how I would just like to say 2 things.
Firstly, there is no rule concerning âdibsâ or anything by someone finding a lens. It might be courtesy to say â{insert names} also found this object independentlyâ but if you wish to publish something on it you can, regardless of whether or not someone else found it first. This is ok as long as you (the person writing) found the object independently as well (i.e. didnât look and spot it on a discussion board because that might be a bit iffy). So regardless of whether or not Claude found it, you can publish it if you want to and so could Claude or Ed or anyone who found it independently. Equally if you didnât find it independently and just want to publish a paper analysing it (but not saying you found it) thatâs also completely find.
Secondly, donât change the data from Claudeâs thing. If it is unreported, it might not have an SDSS id but that data might exist. That abstract however does need rewriting if I am honest, possibly as below (donât copy pasta - it was written in about 20s):
We report the discovery of a potential gravitational lens candidate within Sloan Digital Sky Survey data. {insert basic relevant data}. The event is caused by {insert what you think the cause is and explain a little}. {Analyse and explain the available data briefly}. The event was noticed independently by {insert names}.
2 Likes
Lets further set the record straight.
There absolutely are SDSS data for this object - in fact SDSS has 2 sources for it. Not entirely sure why heâs put the SDSS id in the table of HSC photometry, but thats easily fixed.
The HSC data in the table may not be pulled from images, but it absolutely can be pulled from the HSC data archive, which is publicly available data. An objectâs photometry doesnt become someoneâs intellectual property as soon as they pull it from an existing archive, so iâll repeat that the accusation of plagiarism is laughable.
If the GZ message has been edited, then post the original. Weird claim to make without showing any evidence.
I hate this culture that has bred on Galaxy Zoo where being the first person to spot something means everything, and if you post something on there in an obscure thread one time with zero analysis, any researcher around the world must wax lyrical about you in any paper they write about it. Itâs the only project that has that strange culture, and it frustrates me, as GZ was designed to be a collaborative process, but people are quick to let you know if you post something they posted 7 years ago in a thread nobody remembers. In reality, credit is a citation if youâve already published it, or authorship if you actively contributed to the given paper. People donât write in to papers âxx posted this to yy threadâ - thats what citizen science projects do to show that their volunteers & networking platform are effective, and this is something I want Chris to remove as part of a reformat.
You have every right to not be a part of the RN, but you couldâve simply said âI do not wish to be an author on this, please remove meâ. Instead, you started accusing, and iâm afraid that its your conduct that you should reflect on, not his.
3 Likes
Incredible response. Ditto the culture of saying âI spotted it first itâs my discoveryâ. If someone wants to follow up on it, go ahead. If science followed a pattern of closed-minded âownershipâ of discoveries, nothing would ever get done.
1 Like
@tombickle
I am glad you offer to teamwork with Chris.
I never had misinterpretations like this going on here when I am working with a few zooniverse teamsâŚ
Your last one "SDSS data for this object "
Please look at my GZ post which reads
#double SDSS J224526.96+003003.5 , SDSS J224526.87+003002.5
GAL NE 1237666649487376868
I maintain: no SDSS data on the lens!
Have a good analysis and RNAAS letter with the team.
1 Like
Ironically the lensed image itself is the only part which does have SDSS data lol. The foreground galaxy causing the lensing isnt detected.
2 Likes
Iâve been following this discussion here. But I think C_cld is right. And I have a lot of respect for him because he is really an experienced person in the field of astronomy. Itâs indecent to gossip about him.
Ine 
3 Likes
Thereâs no gossip involved. I was responding directly to his own post in this thread.
He may be experienced, but experienced people can show poor judgement.
Edit: For what its worth, iâve gone back and taken a fresh look at what he wrote, and I still believe that he was wrong. Doesnât surprise me to see a fellow GZ regular sticking up for him though - the culture there is an infectious one. Its why I try to stay away as much as I can, aside from adding new voorwerp candidates to the thread.
Not shocked to see the only defense being âheâs experiencedâ, rather than an actual defense of the conduct. But hey, it seems his attack has worked, since Chris doesnât seem to be interested in writing it up any more. Congrats I guess.
2 Likes
Hi, I had already said it earlier on the topic below your reply to BeloAveragePhysicist.
I think we might need a plan of something else.
1 Like
Point of the matter, anyone can publish what they want. If Chris would like to publish something, he may. Only point is just finding a lens isnât enough for a full paper. Please do let me know if I have missed something.
1 Like
I hardly see why @tombickle and I are entirely wrong (?). The size of each site hardly matters. The only thing both of us have said is that you are free to publish what you want and there is no dibs on discovering stuff and none of that is wrong.
Might sometime provide na update to my paper sometime this weekend.
I think perhaps english is their second language so they have misunderstood us. Its all good. Either theyâll publish it or they wont, but at least iâve got my PSA out about publishing and ownership of objects.
1 Like
Ah I see. Very good - thanks for the PSA. Itâs an important one
Hey @c_cld, I have some lenses you are welcome to register/write up
Three you already validated for me and there are another three you havenât seen.
It would be great if I get some kind of mention but it is also fine if I donât.
Cheers,
GStark