Hi Salman I have some thoughts that may add to your list of possible explanations: -One difference between PANDA report and WoS is that the last is not taking papers that are under review or pre-prints. Yes, those papers may not be accepted yet, but I am sure that our rate of success is very high and the PANDA entries reflect what papers were made in a given FY. In some cases, some journals are super slow publishing. However, every PANDA entry has an attached draft which in principle passed some quality control. -In my POV, it is not fair how WoS is taking in account the total production of our division. Let us say 2 people in the division are in the same 2 papers, if we take individual PANDA reports we would get 4 papers, but WoS reports only 2. In my opinion, we should take the sum of individuals. We should define the metric. -WoS is taking calendar years, whereas PANDA reports are by FY. -In my case I suffer of systematic misses in the records because my first and last names have weird characters or too complicated for web 2.0, and it is not trivial to claim papers in WoS. The opposite is also true, I have coworkes with h-index 65 or more , when they just finished the phd 3 years ago. [similar argument in PANDA, there are 2 or 3 Alvaros] -WoS does not take in account DOE technical reports and similar production, right? Were we can find more about PEMP requirements, and why is this important? This is the first time I hear of that. What we traditionally do for the performance appraisal is to attach a PANDA FY report, is that perfect and reflects our work? maybe not... but this is what we have now 2 weeks before the FY ends. I agree, the situation is not only 'patently ridiculous', but also complicated for everyone (a ultra fast pandemia, canceled conferences, difficulty hiring new talent, less computing resources at ANL and therefore less projects, mixed information of Aurora deployment, etc) and I am almost sure that our publications had suffered an impact too. And it is not clear to me how far this impact will go. I wish we can take this basecamp document just to provide upper management to get a perspective of what we have done and have a metric for what our annual production is, and do not use this as a wall of shame for those with less papers this year. Needless to say, we should price quality over quantity. All the best, -Álvaro Vázquez-Mayagoitia, PhD Computational Scientist - R&D Chemistry and Materials Science Argonne National Laboratory https://web.alcf.anl.gov/~vama/ ________________________________ From: cps-employees <[email protected]> on behalf of Habib, Salman <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 9:17 PM To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: CPS publications Hi Everyone, I just got a listing of all the peer reviewed publications from CPS for the last fiscal year (as found in Web of Science), see attached. This is from a reporting exercise carried out by the library that is part of the annual Argonne PEMP requirements. How can it be that the entire Division only had 7 papers in one year? Something must be wrong! 1. It could be that the paper was counted with some other Division as the primary. 2. Or your papers are just missing because the WoS search is highly incomplete (true in my case). Samantha, can you check this listing against our PANDA records? We have until October 31 to fix this. We really need to have our own records of what we are publishing, the current situation is patently ridiculous. Please check to see which of your publications are missing and let's collect them. I have started a document in the CPS Basecamp for the PEMP reporting: https://3.basecamp.com/3115476/buckets/11926740/documents/3033452659 A good target date to have the info completed would be the first week of October. Thanks! Salman