Science in the age of Ukraine: update

 One additional item regarding Russian involvement in world science:  According to a tweet by Robyn Dixon,  the Moscow Bureau Chief of the Washington Post, Russia has now barred university staff from publishing in international (presumably non-Russian) scientific journals or attending international conferences. 

If this is enforced, this will essentially bar all collaborative publications, since I can't imagine non-Russians being willing to publish in Russian journals.  All of the LHC experiments (and many many other international collaborations) have a long pipeline of papers at various stages in the analyzing/writing/editing/publication process.  What will happen to these papers?    

There may be a precedent from the height of the cold war, when the West and the Soviet Union had parallel journal structures, and cross-publishing was uncommon.   A. B. Migda published his' 1956 quantum mechanical calculation of Landau-Pomeranchuk-Migdal suppression of bremsstrahlung and pair production  in both the American Physical Review and the Soviet Doklady Akad Nauk SSR.  Now, the Physical Review article is well known and  still heavily cited, while the Doklady Akad Nauk SSR article is mostly forgotten.  

If all better solutions fall through, one could imagine a solution where the Russian part of a collaboration publishes a result in Russian journals, while the Western part publishes in a Western journal.   I am sure that many readers will be slightly outraged by this idea.  I do not claim that it is a good idea, but it may be the least-bad route forward if the Russian-Western estrangement drags on for longer than different collaboration can hold off on publications in the hope that the author list problem will resolve itself.

Science in the age of Ukraine

 

Watching the news the past two weeks has been difficult – the scenes from Ukraine are reminiscent of World War II, and the brutal unprovoked invasion by Putin’s Russia has few parallels in more recent history.     The one bright spot has been the U. S. and international reaction, where a consensus in support of Ukraine has developed, coupled with an active resupply of weapons and strong sanctions on Russia. 

 

The Russian invasion also affect science.  Science is international, and most large collaborations include Russian and/or Ukrainian colleagues.    Naturally, there has been much talk about if/how to sanction Russian scientists, with many groups favoring their immediate ouster. 

 

Many of these scientific collaborations are long-standing.  The ALICE Collaboration (of which I am a member) at CERN’s [in English: European Organization for Nuclear Research] Large Hadron Collider has roots that go back more than 20 years, and much of the data now being published was taken in the mid 2010’s, with significant Russian involvement in both detector construction, data taking, and calibration and software.   The analysis connected with a single paper typically extends over more than a year, and involves people from multiple institutions.  

 

When a paper is written, there are clear standards for the required level of involvement to merit authorship.   This is true in both the broader scientific world, and, with more specific standards, within ALICE and other large collaborations.   Omitting deserving contributor from the author list can be considered either scientific misconduct (failing to give credit) or plagiarism (if the contributed actually wrote some of the text).   Per these rules, is unethical to rob Russian scientists of scientific credit for the work that they have done.

 

But, people are rightly outraged by Russian behavior. Ukrainian scientists very rightfully do not want to collaborate with Russian scientists, and have called for Russia’s ouster from CERN.  Some European funding agencies have banned collaboration with Russian authors, including joint publications. This extends to scientific journal operations.

 

On the other hand, during the first ~ week of the war, before it became illegal for them, many Russian scientists spoke out against the war. It feels wrong to sanction people who spoke up, at some personal risk.   Now, the scientists have been forced into silence, and their institutions are speaking out in favor of the invasion.   So, one goal would be to sanction the institutes, but not individual scientists.  This is unfortunately easier said than done.

 

Finding the right direction is not easy.  CERN, and most other international organizations) took no action during previous Russian invasions, such as Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968, Afghanistan in 1979 or Crimea and Donbass in 2014. The CERN Council recently decided to suspend Russia’s status as an observer at CERN.  They are not currently ousting the Russian scientists who are already working at CERN, but are also not expanding any ties.  This was clearly an attempt to find a middle ground, and it may be suitable short-term.    Other organizations have taken a range of actions, ranging from nothing (at least so far, such as International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER)) to suspending Russian membership (Nuclear Physics European CollaborationCommittee (NuPECC)).  And, many institutions are taking steps to support their Ukrainian colleagues who have been affected by the invasion. 

 

Medium and long term, this solution is not enough, due to some nagging problems. One involves publications.   If Ukrainians and other European scientists will not or cannot (due to funding restrictions) publish with Russians, what do we do with ready-for-submission manuscripts with authors from both groups?   It seems wrong to drop the Russian authors, and at least equally wrong to let the presence of Russian authors keep other scientists from signing these papers.     So, what to do?  One possibility that has been circulating would be to allow the Russian authors to sign the papers, but as individuals, without their Russian institutional affiliations.  Whether that will satisfy everyone remains to be seen. 

 

Disclaimer:  The opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent my employer or any other institutions or collaborations.