Note that we have a public “data sharing plan” for the GBMF DDDi award, available here.


Projects that lab members bring with them do not automatically confer authorship rights to either Matt or other lab members. However, if work is conducted on them during the course of being present in the lab, acknowledgments would be appreciated; funding acknowledgments may be necessary.

Projects that are collaborated on between lab members do confer authorship, whether that collaboration takes the form of intellectual collaboration, technical collaboration or data sharing. For instance, writing code to support analysis or simulation would confer authorship. Sharing information during group meetings does not, although if material intellectual contributions (i.e., new directions, solutions to problems, specific and directed project ideas) are made by lab members, that would confer authorship.

Matt would very much to be involved in the development of projects that lead to publication, but this is not strictly necessary, and certainly not necessary where lab members are providing supporting roles to external collaborations. Please keep Matt apprised of the broad outlines of your external and internal collaborations.

Project Ownership

From a social, rather than a licensing or intellectual property perspective, when a project is developed in the lab primarily by a single participant, that participant is free to continue developing and assuming project leadership once they have departed the lab. In fact, developing projects that mature, grow, and may contribute to their future career is a key part of the process of scientific development.

For projects that are collaboratively developed with multiple roughly equal participants, “leadership” will be decided on a case-by-case basis, erring on the side of providing intellectual freedom and empowerment to earlier-stage researchers.

However, projects that are part of a strategic lab direction may continue to be developed within the lab following departure of a primary developer. In such a case, decisions about “forking” or bifurcating development will be held on a case-by-case basis.

Lab Presence and Environment


Human resources guidelines take precedence over this section.

Full-time lab members are encouraged to make themselves available during normal working business hours, although this is a flexible definition; in general, if you are able to come to the office between 10-4, that is desirable. Remote lab members should try to be available during those hours and accessible online or via phone. We intend to foster a collegial lab atmosphere, with opportunities for spontaneous discussions and creative opportunities.

Lab members are not expected to sacrifice personal or leisure time in service of projects. Working long hours without interruption can lead to burnout, exhaustion, and overall impedes the type of atmosphere we are trying to develop.

Lab members are encouraged to participate in NCSA activities as well as activities in other departments on campus (Astronomy, GSLIS, Beckman, Informatics). This includes contributing to NCSA projects, collaborating with individuals from other groups around campus and the center, and fostering new collaborations both internal and external to UIUC. We strive to be a part of the intellectual community at NCSA and UIUC. Lab members should endeavor to be good “citizens” at NCSA, participating in colloquia, all-hands meetings, and other projects as they become available.

Data Management

When data is used by the lab, it is expected to reside on the shared filesystem. Accompanying this should be an index or README file describing what the data is, where it originated from, and what restrictions there are on its use. When data is stored on the shared filesystem, there is no expectation of privacy within the lab unless it is explicitly enforced; for special cases this can be dealt with differently. Lab members are not encouraged to browse other directories, but it is not forbidden. For example, this might be an example directory structure::


and so on. In the near-term future, we will be deploying a data cataloging system which will be fed with the data from README files, and which will be the primary cataloging system in the future.

Wherever possible, names should conform to including either a date (if the data is tied to a specific time, parameter query or observation) or a semantically-meaningful name (if it is part of a larger project.)


Unless there is a very good reason (PII or other restrictions, for instance), work should be conducted in public repositories on publicly accessible servers such as bitbucket. This includes software. Paper repositories should be open, but may be held back as private until time of either first submission to a journal, a preprint server, or a non-author for review. Because it is expected that repositories will be made publicly accessible, including history of changesets, lab members are encouraged to behave professionally in them.


Many professional societies, including AAS, consider the content of referee reports to be de facto confidential. As such, unless the report is explicitly open, it should not be added to repositories as text, commit messages, or comments in papers.

Grant proposals developed internally with no external PIs or Co-PIs should be made available unless there is confidential information. Grant proposals developed in collaboration with external PIs or Co-PIs may be kept confidential at the external collaborators discretion, although our preference is for them to be open.

Record Keeping

Lab members are expected to keep notes of their actions. This can be somewhat free-form, as the purpose is not to keep “tabs” on actions, but instead to ensure that work can be reconstructed. These can be kept either in a centralized lab repository, next to specific projects in text files, or on Trello cards on the DXL organization.


Unless strongly prohibited by external concerns, the necessary components of a scholarly work to provide reproducibility should be provided in a publicly accessible location and potentially as part of the scientific record. In the case of an astrophysical simulation paper, this would include:

  • The source code that ran the simulation (shorthand would be the hash of the publicly available source)
  • The parameter file or definitions file, and if applicable initial conditions, that ran the simulation.
  • Analysis code that generated plots from the paper.

The overall theme here is that of reproducibility; this is not the same as bitwise identical reproduction, which is often unavailable because of constraints such as order-of-arrival differences. The additional overhead of making work reproducible should not be onerous compared to the other expectations, and in many ways (i.e., turnkey plot generation, good note taking on data, etc) can reduce the overall effort of developing papers and workflows.

We will endeavor to respond to requests to reproduce DXL results by providing necessary technology and data, allowing for reasonable commitments of time and effort.


Note: this is distinct from the code of conduct for the lab, which applies both within and without the lab.

Our actions should be guided by the ethics of participating in the scientific community. This includes prioritizing our professional obligations over fear of being “scooped.” For instance, it is completely unacceptable to interfere with the peer review process for a paper out of concern of protecting one’s own work (i.e., “sitting” on a review for it, making unreasonable requests to delay publication, and so on.)

When competitors request assistance with software developed in the lab, we should attempt to make a best effort to assist them. It is not unreasonable to ask for authorship, particularly if the collaboration is extensive.

When authoring papers, we should be providing citations to all software that assisted in the development of the scholarly work. While in the extreme case this would extend to the operating system level, in general it is acceptable to cite the layers of software in the analysis stack (e.g., NumPy, Matplotlib, IPython/Jupyter, SymPy, yt, etc.) It is preferred to directly cite the canonical papers (often described in CITATION.txt files) for software, but acknowledging them without citation may be sufficient.

Citations to data DOIs or publications should be made wherever possible, and where not possible, should be included as footnotes.

When developing software, we must make a best effort to cite which pieces of software contributed to the development.

Plagarism is unacceptable in any form. This includes “first pass” text included in papers or proposals; when “first pass” text is included from an external source, it must be clearly marked as such to ensure it is not accidentally included in the final product.


If you are supported by the Moore Foundation, please include this text in your paper’s acknowledgments section:

This publication is supported in part by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation’s Data-Driven Discovery Initiative through Grant GBMF4561 to Matthew Turk.

If you are supported by the NSF SI2 award, please include this text in your paper’s acknowledgments section (see Section 3)

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. ACI-1535651.

Except for articles or papers published in scientific, technical or professional journals, the following disclaimer must be included:

Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

At present, all postdocs in the lab are supported at least in part by both awards.