| Message: Report on Authorship, - one more question | Not Logged In (login) |
|
Dear Colleagues, I finally have found a little time to get back to the authorship report. I have reread many of the comments posted in the hypernews and have tried to implement them. Thanks you all very much for this input. The trouble is, the integration of various suggestions does not make the report shorter! There has been a suggetion to split the report in two, one for particle physics, the other for the science community at large. I am afrid i have not followed up on that. The current report is pretty much addressed to the particle physics community, but also useful for other physicists. One question I had all along which is the proposal by the LHC collaborations to publish Physics Notes. What do you really mean by this? Are these papers that give the details of the analysis on published in Physical Review or Nuclear Physics? So the same group would first prepare the brief letter for the first publication which everybody signs and would then also write the longer detailed paper which only the few analysts sign? So the whole collaboration receives credit for the result and the analyst get credit for the detailed paper? Is this would you have in mind? In BABAR the "Physics Notes" are 50 - 300 pages long, with details not suitable for publication. I would think one would need to trim these notes substantially for publication. What do you plan to do with several groups working in the same topic independently, writing independent physics notes to describe the analysis? How would you deal with the short letter and then the longer paper? A clarification would help me to give these physics notes the proper emphasis in the report. I am hoping to finish the report next week and will then circulate it once more to the working group. best regards, Vera |
| Inline Depth: | Outline Depth: | Add message: |
|
to: |