Search

Software and data citation are emerging best practices in scholarly communication. This article provides structured guidance to the academic publishing community on how to implement software and data citation in publishing workflows. These best practices support the verifiability and reproducibility of scientific results; sharing and reuse of valuable data and software tools, and attribution to the creators of the software and data. While data citation is increasingly well-established, software citation is rapidly maturing. With the current intensive use of software, including specialized tools and models for scientific research problems, the research community has begun to recognize that software, as a key research result and resource, requires the same level of transparency, accessibility, and disclosure as data. Software and data that support scientific results should be preserved and shared in scientific repositories for discovery, transparency, and use by other researchers. These goals can be supported by citing these products in the Reference Section of papers and effectively associating them to the software and data preserved in scientific repositories. Publishers need to mark up these references in a specific way to enable downstream processes, specifically those that enable automated attribution. Academic publishers wishing to stay current with best practices in the field are encouraged to follow the guidance provided here.

The COVID-19 pandemic affected the scientific workforce in many ways. Many worried that stay-at-home orders would disproportionately harm the productivity and well-being of women and early-career s...

The American Geophysical Union (AGU) is pleased to submit this RFI response to 2021-13640 on improving federal scientific integrity policies. AGU is the largest global organization covering the Ear...

The scientific community is becoming more demographically diverse, and team science is becoming more common. Here, we compare metrics of success in academic research, acceptance rates, and citations, among/across differing team compositions regarding demographic diversity. We collected the final decisions and citations as of 2019 of 91,427 manuscripts submitted from 2012–2018 to journals published by the American Geophysical Union. We matched the authors by email on each manuscript to self‐provided demographic information within the American Geophysical Union's membership database. This resulted in 20,940 manuscripts matched to nation, gender, and career stage, and 6,015 manuscripts matched to race/ethnicity for manuscripts in which the entire authorship team was affiliated with the United States. Among similar sized authorship teams (teams of two to four), acceptance rates were 2.7, 4.5, and 0.9% higher (pnation

We examine a suite of journal-level productivity and citation statistics for six leading hydrology journals in order to help authors understand the robustness and meaning of journal impact factors. The main results are (1) the probability distribution of citations is remarkably homogenous across hydrology journals; (2) hydrology papers tend to have a long-lasting impact, with a large fraction of papers cited after the 2 year window used to calculate the journal impact factor; and (3) journal impact factors are characterized by substantial year-to-year variability (especially for smaller journals), primarily because a small number of highly cited papers have a large influence on the journal impact factor. Consequently, the ranking of hydrology journals with respect to the journal impact factor in a given year does not have much information content. These results highlight problems in using citation data to evaluate hydrologic science. We hope that this analysis helps authors better understand journal-level citation statistics, and also helps improve research assessments in institutions and funding agencies.

Author networks play a key role in doing science. Developing networks is critical for career advancement in a variety of ways, and differences in networks may be a core reason for persistence of implicit bias, particularly with regards to gender. Combining the American Geophysical Union (AGU) Fall Meeting abstracts from 2014–2018 with self‐identified AGU member data on birth year and gender provides a large database of more than 400,000 unique coauthor interactions that we use to examine author networks by age, gender, and country. Age data are necessary to disambiguate the effect of a historic lack of women in the Earth and Space Science. The data show that women's networks are closer to those expected from the age–gender distribution of the overall membership; whereas, networks of men include more men than expected. Women also have more male coauthors within their age cohort than expected from the membership distribution. Women's networks are also less international than their male colleagues in most age cohorts. These differences start in the youngest age cohort. These data indicate that addressing implicit bias requires efforts at purposefully encouraging and developing more balanced author networks, particularly in early‐career scientists. Recent work suggests that this will also improve science outputs.

Researchers are challenged with preparing and complying with data management plans and open data mandates. The ocean science repository community has demonstrated the benefits of providing FAIR (fi...

Jory Lerback and Brooks Hanson present an analysis that reveals evidence of gender bias in peer review for scholarly publications.

The society is incorporating into its publications new identification codes akin to the digital object identifiers used for journal articles, but for field samples, funders, and more.

Volcanic and plutonic rocks exposed in east-central California record a long history of metasomatism and/or metamorphism within the Mesozoic Cordilleran continental arc. We use whole-rock and mineral elemental compositions, along with standard and cathodoluminescence petrography to characterize alteration histories of Late Triassic to Middle Jurassic metavolcanic rocks in the Ritter Range, White-Inyo Mountains, and Alabama Hills. Although alkali-metasomatism is widespread and pervasive, ratios and abundances of Ce, Th, Tb, and Ta suggest that mafic protoliths from the White-Inyo Mountains were shoshonitic, whereas those from the Ritter Range were calc-alkaline. Alkali exchange apparently modified the compositions of many metavolcanic rocks. Much of this metasomatism may have occurred at low-temperature (T) conditions, and attended or shortly postdated deposition of the volcanic protoliths. High δ 18 O values for K-rich metatuffs from

Two-dimensional numerical models are used to examine variations of fluid flow and fluid pressure induced by topography, thermal buoyancy, and production of metamorphic fluids during continental collision. After burial, the thermal and denudation history of the crust and permeability are first-order controls on the pattern of fluid flow and its evolution with time. Topography generally controls flow patterns at shallow levels (over thermal buoyancy), and for permeabilities less than about 1 mu D, metamorphic devolatilization controls flow patterns at depth. As a result, fluids are driven during metamorphism from the hinterland to the foreland throughout the crust. Devolatilization fluxes are on the order of 10 6 kg m (super -2) ; higher fluxes can be produced by focusing of flow in areas of high permeability. Once cooling of the crust ensues, metamorphic fluid production ceases, and fluid pressures, even in the models with permeabilities of less than 1 nD, drop toward hydrostatic values. Although most other hydrologic forcings not included in the models, such as expansion of pores due to unloading, will also act to decrease fluid pressures, ductile flow of rocks may close pores and prevent a drop in fluid pressure above the brittle-ductile boundary. Because of the low permeability that results, hydrofracturing is particularly likely to happen at depths below the brittle-ductile boundary near the peak of metamorphism as cooling progresses downward through the crust. Widespread flow of fluids toward higher temperatures at depth, as has recently been proposed, is unlikely because it requires a decrease in fluid pressures toward the hinterland and thus low topography, low rates of metamorphic devolatilization, and high permeability.

Numerical models that account for fluid flow, magmatic and metamorphic fluid production, topography and thermal expansion of the fluid following emplacement of a granitic magma in the upper crust reveal controls on the distribution of magmatic fluids during the evolution of a hydrothermal system. Initially, fluid pressures are close to lithostatic in and near an intrusion, and internally generated magmatic and metamorphic fluids are expelled. Later, fluid pressures drop to hydrostatic values and meteoric fluids circulate throughout the system. High permeabilities and low rates of fluid production accelerate this transition. Fluid production in the magma and wallrocks is the dominant mechanism elevating fluid pressures to lithostatic values. For granitic intrusions, about three to five times as much magmatic fluid is produced as metamorphic fluid. Continuous fluid release from a granitic magma with a vertical dimensions of 10 km produces a dynamic permeability of up to several tens of microdarcies.Near the surface, topography associated with a typical volcano acts to maintain a shallow meteoric flow system and drive fluids laterally. The exponential decay with depth of the influence of topography on fluid pressures results in a persistent zone of mixing at a depth of 1-2 km between these meteoric fluids and magmatic fluids despite variations in the strength of the magmatic hydrothermal system. However, in shallow systems where fluid release is episodic, dramatic changes in the region of mixing are still possible because fluid pressure is sensitive to variations in the rates of fluid production. At depth, high rates of metamorphic fluid production in the wallrocks and low permeabilities (< 1 μD) produce elevated fluid pressures, which hinder the lateral flow of magmatic fluids. Together, these patterns are consistent with the distribution and evolution of skarns and hydrothermal ore deposits around granitic magmas.

During contact metamorphism, fluid production from magma and wall rocks, thermal expansion of fluid, thermal and chemical buoyancy, topography, and deformation of rocks all interact to drive fluid flow. An understanding of how these processes interact is necessary to predict the evolution of fluid flow, fluid pressures, and permeability; to evaluate mechanisms of ore deposition, metasomatism, and heat transfer; and to apply petrologic, field, and geochemical data to infer hydrologic histories. Results from finite-difference models that account for many of these processes reveal the hydrodynamics of contact metamorphism. A systematic evolution in flow system from lithostatic fluid pressures and expulsion of internally generated fluids, to hydrostatic fluid pressures and circulation of externally derived fluids is predicted to occur with time, increasing permeability, and decreasing depth. Fluid production from magmas and wall rocks is the dominant process elevating fluid pressures toward lithostatic values during prograde metamorphism; other processes, such as strain or thermal expansion of the fluid, are less significant. For typical water contents of magmas and wall rocks, permeabilities of ≤1 μd (10 −18 m 2 ) are required to produce lithostatic fluid pressures in the aureole. Consideration of processes controlling permeability suggests that fluid flow is likely intergranular during prograde metamorphism and channelized during retrograde metamorphism. Balance of rates of thermal fracturing and mineral deposition implies that permeability should increase above 1 μd during cooling, and thus fluid pressures should drop abruptly toward hydrostatic values once cooling and fracturing ensues. Rocks near the contact cool first, and complex mixing of magmatic, metamorphic, and meteoric fluids is likely in this region. If permeability increases during cooling, meteoric fluids may dominate the total fluid budget even though rocks interact with only magmatic and metamorphic fluids during prograde metamorphism. Many broad features of the models are similar to patterns observed in porphyry copper deposits. Models with ad hoc assumptions of permeability near the contact are required to produce significant up-temperature fluid flow during prograde metamorphism, a pattern predicted from some reaction-transport models.

[1] The NNW-trending White-Inyo Range includes intrusive and volcanic rocks on the eastern flank of the Sierran volcano-plutonic arc. The NE-striking, steeply SE-dipping Barcroft reverse fault separates folded, metamorphosed Mesozoic White Mountain Peak mafic and felsic volcanic flows, volcanogenic sedimentary rocks, and minor hypabyssal plugs on the north from folded, well-bedded Neoproterozoic-Cambrian marble and siliciclastic strata on the south. The 163 ± 2 Ma Barcroft Granodiorite rose along this fault, and thermally recrystallized its wall rocks. However, new SHRIMP-RG ages of magmatic zircons from three White Mountain Peak volcanogenic metasedimentary rocks and a metafelsite document stages of effusion at ∼115–120 Ma as well as at ∼155–170 Ma. The U-Pb data confirm the interpretation by Hanson et al. (1987) that part of the metasedimentary-metavolcanic pile was laid down after Late Jurassic intrusion of the Barcroft pluton. The Lower Cretaceous, largely volcanogenic metasedimentary section lies beneath a low-angle thrust fault, the upper plate of which includes interlayered Late Jurassic mafic and felsic metavolcanic rocks and the roughly coeval Barcroft pluton. Late Jurassic and Early Cretaceous volcanism in this sector of the Californian continental margin, combined with earlier petrologic, structural, and geochronologic studies, indicates that there was no gap in igneous activity at this latitude of the North American continental margin.

S evere criticism has justly been heaped on the Kansas State Board of Education's decision to purge evolution and cosmology from their science curricula despite the expressed outrage of that state's university leadership. Two aspects of this intellectual cleansing atrocity are most troubling. The first is that no political leaders from either party have as yet elected to step forward and challenge the lunacy of removing from the educational opportunities of the future voters of Kansas two of the best-established theories of our era. Such reluctance emphasizes a growing public ignorance of the methods by which scientific observations are formulated into testable hypotheses and, when sufficiently strongly supported, are elevated into those grand schemes of explanation and rigor called theories. The theory of the origins of the universe and the theory of evolution have attained this level of acceptance, even though certain biblical literalists would prefer that their young listeners not confront scripture with overwhelming scientific evidence. However, Kansas teachers will no longer be required to include these theories in their curriculum, and their performance as educators will be judged on what remains. Paradoxically, the new scholastic achievement standards of Kansas assert that “Students will learn to distinguish between science and other forms of knowledge or beliefs such as philosophy and religion.” Second, and more troubling, is the shrewdness of the strategy employed by the creationists in achieving their ends. No longer are they attempting to overturn the series of court decisions that have banned the teaching of creationism as a science. The new strategy, representing a far more threatening menace to future generations, is not only not to teach evolution and cosmology but to undermine the solidity of their scientific acceptance. What is needed is not a dumbing down of educational standards but exactly the opposite, and not just for students but for all members of an educated, informed electorate. Evolution is the unifying concept of biology and the basis for all modern biological research, including much research that affects our daily lives and national welfare (see, for example, Science, [25 June 1999][1]). It is as fundamental in vaccine and health research as it is in agriculture. Incomprehensibly, Kansas has now decided to stop teaching about the basis of its current and future economy. According to recent surveys, most of the public is unaware of the wealth of data supporting the 4.55-billion-year age of Earth and the long fossil record of evolving life forms on it. Hundreds of thousands of radiometric analyses now provide consistent dates across terrestrial and lunar rocks, meteorites, and other samples. Annual layers exceed 40,000 years in ice cores, 10,000 years in tree ring records, and tens of thousands of years in lake sediments. Plate velocity rates, the depth of the ocean, heat flow data, magnetic reversals, and many additional observations rooted in physics, chemistry, astronomy, and biology provide independent confirmation of Earth's history. The attack on evolution is thus unequivocally an attack on all of scientific knowledge. Scientists are all trained to be skeptics, but not all skeptics, including those who defy facts on the basis of their religious roots, have scientific training. The Kansas decision flies in the face of the National Academy of Sciences' national standards for science education, those of the American Association for the Advancement of Science's Project 2061, and a recent Academy document aimed at teaching evolution. These efforts thus seem clearly to be insufficient. In the past, U.S. political leaders understood the connection between scientific research, education, and economic competitiveness. Funding of biological, agricultural, and space research and of energy exploration—wholly reliant on evolution and cosmology—has fostered the U.S. economy. Where are these leaders now? Is rigorous science needed only when there is a Cold War threat? Many of those claiming to be passionate about education remain puzzlingly silent. Science is not an attack on people's beliefs, nor is it irreconcilable with scientists holding religious convictions themselves. The Kansas decision is not an isolated action but the tip of an iceberg of ignorance that is growing, not melting. Unless these new strategies are directly defied, the United States will not for long remain a leader in science and technology [1]: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol284/issue5423/

GEOLOGY The oldest minerals on Earth—a few dating as much as 4.4 billion years ago—are igneous zircons that have been eroded and incorporated into comparatively younger 3.8-billion-year-old sedimentary rocks. Several studies have examined the geochemistry of these zircons and inferred conditions on early Earth and the composition of its early crust. Initial results based on the zircon oxygen isotopic compositions and trace element chemistry have implied that liquid water was abundant and that some magmas were cool and water-rich. Two related studies provide expanded data and additional constraints. Harrison et al. examined the titanium content of zircons, which can be related to the crystallization temperature and thus the water and silica content of a magma. Through a comparative study of zircons in younger granites, they argue that the overall distribution of data in the very old zircons is most consistent with derivation from magmas that formed by remelting of water-rich crust. Trail et al. examined the oxygen isotope compositions and confirmed that several grains have high 18O/16O ratios, implying derivation of the host magma from water-altered crust or sediments. Together the data imply that early Earth had a vigorous rock cycle involving water, erosion, and burial and heating of sediments, like that operating today. — BH Geology 35 , 635 (2007); Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 8 , 10.1029/2006GC001449 (2007).

T he Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, stated simply, holds that the act of observing an electron perturbs it so that its position and momentum cannot be measured simultaneously. A modest logical extrapolation might engender a Media Uncertainty Principle: when the mass media cover science, any given result is inevitably highlighted simply by reporting it, in a way that affects, positively and negatively, the public perception of science and the evolution of science itself. Although some observers might doubt whether press attention is a good thing, Science believes that such coverage serves an invaluable function. It serves to focus people's attention on important problems and controversies, as well as to prompt self-correction. For example, the early reporting of AIDS cases was instrumental in breaking through public indifference and forcing recognition of the mounting epidemic. A spotlight on a scientific finding means that repetition and confirmation of exciting results will happen quickly and that irreproducibility or shortcomings in the research will quickly be revealed. On the other hand, recent examples of the deflating of a “breakthrough” following close on the heels of media attention (such as the reports of an icy asteroid striking Earth, and the Jefferson paternity story) weaken the credibility of the scientific endeavor. The negative consequences of this can also be seen in the unrealistic public expectations and disappointment that have followed the overselling of cancer therapies, cures for obesity, and the allure of gene therapy. The relationship between science and the press is of necessity uneasy. Scientists complain that a newsbite approach to science reporting focuses on (and frequently hypes) immediate impact, rather than giving a sense of prior work forming the foundation of a result. This is compounded by the fact that only a selected sampling of results or topics is routinely deemed newsworthy. Science reporters, on the other hand, complain that some scientists become dismissive and arrogant when dealing with the press. Too many scientists are unwilling (or unable) to communicate their findings in a way that will be intelligible to anyone except their close colleagues. Some, faced with cameras and microphones, are overwhelmed by the temptation to make their results live up to the excitement of the moment. Funders, scientific societies, and journals themselves contribute to the focus on “breakthroughs.” Given the funding environment, public relations firms have hungry customers clamoring for more attention to their interests and opportunities, and distribute a flood of press releases on new results. Scientists and administrators can be under pressure from them to represent results beyond what has been allowed in a published peer-reviewed paper—or to misrepresent contrasting or earlier results. The public presentation and thus understanding of basic research and scientific progress can suffer, even in a world where more science is being covered. Such tensions are, of course, not limited to science. However, the increasing speed of information flow and the increasing pressures on scientists and journalists mean that all players must be mindful of the Uncertainty Principle and its effects. The reporting of science is immensely better and more extensive than it was even a few years ago, but it can only be improved through better understanding by each side of how the other operates. Several programs launched over the past several years are playing a valuable role in fostering such understanding. They include the AAAS's mass media program, which gives young scientists a taste of working in media outlets; the summer programs run by the Woods Hole Marine Biological Laboratory, which give science journalists a taste of doing bench science; graduate journalism programs, such as the science writing program at the University of California at Santa Cruz, which train science graduates in the art of science writing; and the background seminars conducted by the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing, which bring scientists and journalists together to review the latest developments in selected fields. Such efforts should be encouraged and expanded. We also agree with Michael Crichton's recommendation at the recent AAAS meeting (see Science , p. [1461][1]) that the scientific community should identify and reward members who, as part of their professional responsibilities, can act as effective spokespersons and will be “on call” to interpret discoveries and explain the scientific process to the public. Scientists and the press have common goals in this endeavor. [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.283.5407.1461

Numerical models of magma emplacement during crustal extension show that shallow (

We have used two-dimensional numerical models and analytical solutions to heat flow equations to investigate the mechanisms and the spatial and temporal development of regionally extensive low-pressure facies-series metamorphism (LPM). Two-dimensional models are necessary for describing the evolution of isotherms in the crust where lateral heat flow and local time-dependent heat sources are important. The models demonstrate that felsic intrusions can produce regionally extensive LPM where their abundance through time in the upper crust exceeds approximately 50%. Evenly spaced intrusions elevate vertical metamorphic gradients in regions between intrusions by ∼5° to 10°C km−1 over background values at ∼40% abundance and by ∼15° to >30°C km−1 at ∼70% abundance. Other mechanisms, such as intrusion of mafic magmas in the lower crust, crustal extension, or aqueous fluid advection, cannot independently produce maximum temperatures in such regions. If coeval with intrusion, these other processes will contribute to maximum temperatures; however, the distribution of isotherms and the timing of metamorphism in the upper crust are governed by the shallow intrusions. Intrusion width, abundance, and composition, and timing of emplacement of nearby intrusions have the dominant influences on maximum temperatures between intrusions. For 10-km-wide intrusions, abundances necessary for production of regionally extensive LPM are ∼15% less for gabbros than for granites and ∼20% less when intrusions are emplaced simultaneously than when complete cooling occurs between intrusive events. Intrusion shape, height, convection (magmatic and hydrothermal), and recharge (open system magma chambers) have a significantly less effect on thermal evolution. The total area affected by intrusions depends on their final distribution, not the magmatic flux. In the development of low-pressure metamorphic terranes with abundant intrusions, temperatures in the upper crust are significantly elevated only near recently emplaced intrusions. Consequently, the final distribution of metamorphic grades has little resemblance to the distribution of isotherms at any time—a fundamental difference with LPM in regions lacking abundant shallow intrusions, where metamorphism likely occurs concurrently over large regions. This model of the development of widespread LPM by the juxtaposition through time of local, short-lived thermal maxima should be considered when interpreting temperature-dependent phenomena (for example, deformation) in terranes with abundant intrusions.

Two-dimensional numerical modeling and geological and geophysical constraints from ancient and modern magmatic arcs demonstrate that magmatic heat advection is sufficient to produce low-pressure metamorphic belts in many areas, and that it is apparently necessary in some areas. In the western United States and other areas, regionally extensive low-pressure facies-series metamorphism (LPM) occurs where intrusions form >∼50% of the upper crust. Numerical models indicate that coalescence of thermal aureoles from multiple felsic intrusions can produce regionally extensive LPM where the abundance of intrusions exceeds ∼50%. This effect does not depend strongly on the rate of emplacement; LPM results even with complete cooling between intrusions. Models with geologically reasonable emplacement rates show that in an active magmatic arc, temperatures are near metamorphic maxima for only a small fraction of the time. Arc magmatism cannot sustain widespread thermal gradients of the magnitude indicated by the final distribution of LPM, a result consistent with heat-flow data in active arcs. Low-pressure metamorphic belts can thus develop through numerous local, short-lived metamorphic events while most of the crust remains considerably cooler. Metamorphic maxima largely depend on the biggest nearby intrusion; emplacement rates and other heat sources affect mainly the magnitude, not the distribution of metamorphism. A simulation based on the distribution and U-Pb geochronometry of the composite Sierra Nevada batholith compares favorably with the observed distribution of metamorphic grades and temperature histories; coeval medium-pressure facies-series metamorphism to the east of the batholith requires a different mechanism. Predicted surface heat flow is qualitatively similar in magnitude and distribution to that measured in modern arcs. Sequential intrusions can produce brief ( 10 km) uplift, and evidence for moderate over-all paleothermal gradients require high-level advection of heat. This model of relatively cool crust punctuated by local, short-lived thermal events differs significantly from the image of a broad, uniform thermal maximum that might be drawn from the spatial distribution of LPM; it has implications for crustal deformation igneous petrogenesis, and the interpretation of high metamorphic gradients in Archean terranes.

Mesozoic metavolcanic and metasedimentary rocks in the northern White Mountains, eastern California and western Nevada, are separated from lower Paleozoic and Precambrian rocks by Jurassic and Cretaceous plutons. The large stratigraphic hiatus across the plutons is called the Barcroft structural break. Recent mapping and new U/Pb zircon ages of 154 +3/−1 Ma and 137 ±1 Ma. from an ash-flow tuff and a hypabyssal intrusion, respectively, indicate that part of the Mesozoic section and the Barcroft structural break are younger than the 160–165 Ma Barcroft Granodiorite, in contrast to previous interpretations. The Barcroft Granodiorite has been thrust westward over most of the Mesozoic section. It is everywhere in fault contact with overturned metasedimentary rocks on the west side of the range, rocks which were previously thought to be upright and the oldest part of the Mesozoic section. The McAfee Creek Granite, which has a 100 ±1 Ma U/Pb zircon age, postdates thrusting; therefore, the Barcroft structural break is primarily Early Cretaceous in age.