"and would involve a couple of hundred people between the review committee, physics group and the collaboration at large who post questions, comments and revise

"and would involve a couple of hundred people between the review committee, physics group and the collaboration at large who post questions, comments and revise every bit of information." I'm curious whether much of this work materially differs from the work done by peer reviewers in the journal review process. If it does then authorship may be fine, if it doesn't then it seems that either the internal reviewers should be separately listed on the article as reviewers instead of authors, or that a journal's peer reviewers should also be listed as authors. "Regarding authorship for papers I did not involve in writing directly, I'm fine with that norm in our field because that's fair. Most of the work needed to produce results is not doing the actual analysis for the data but operating this huge machine and the service work (software development, control room shifts, hardware R&D Data quality …etc) is most of the work." Whenever I do this kind of work and am offered an authorship I ask for an acknowledgement instead. It's akin to me to citing the company you purchased your equipment and reagents from (actually designing and constructing your equipment is an important part of the job, too). You cite them, you don't add them as a co-author.