Dear Steve As I mentioned earlier I strongly support speedy submission. I have no real strong opinions on the journal. If you feel that PRL is doubtful considering PHOBOs so be it, but I suspect that PRL is happy to take RHIC papers these days - so perhaps its worth a further consideration. The citations and attention often come in the wake placing the paper on the preprint server and announcing it broadly. In any case I will not argue strongly for any one of PRL, PLB or PRC rapid Comm. Any other opinions in the collab?. cheers JJ ____________________________________________________________ Jens Jørgen Gaardhøje, Assoc. Prof., Dr. Sc. Niels Bohr Institute, Blegdamsvej 17, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark. Tlf: (+45) 35 32 53 09, secr. (+45) 35 32 52 09, Fax: (+45) 35 32 50 16. UNESCO Natl. Comm., secr. (+45) 33 92 52 16. Email: gardhoje@nbi.dk. ____________________________________________________________ ----- Original Message ----- From: Stephen J. Sanders To: Ian Bearden Cc: brahms-l@lists.bnl.gov ; Jens Jørgen Gaardhøje Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 3:49 PM Subject: Re: [Brahms-l] Re: paper draft mult d+Au Hi Ian, JJ, Trine, et al. It looks like they left us a lot of room. I think it is doubtful that they will be able to do a 10% binning, as Trine suggest--Certainly their "analog" counting is subject to the same constraints as ours. I'm not so sure about the digital, but I'd still think they would be statistics limited. We probably need to change the title of our paper to include "centrality dependence of". ...steve On Wednesday, November 12, 2003, at 08:42 AM, Ian Bearden wrote: Hi Steve, JJ, I printed it out again, and managed to get to the printer first, this time. Phobos only has min. bias results, and they compare to AMPT, HIJING, and parton sat. models. The latter, not surprisingly, fails miserably over the entire +-5 units of eta, while AMPT and HIJING are over roughly eta +-4 So maybe a PRL after all? -Ian On 12/11-2003, at 15.13, Stephen J. Sanders wrote: Hi JJ, Thanks for the feedback. I'm open to a Phys. Lett. B submission: As a told Ian earlier, my only concern is that from our experience with the 130 mult paper, its not clear anyone from our community (at least our competitors...) read the journal! I have not seen anything on the Phobos paper. Hiro went to the presentation at the DNP and there they only showed min-bias results (Hiro, correct me if I am wrong on this). The paper had not shown up on their web site as of last evening. I've stated this publicly and privately in the past: Either we push this paper through in the next few weeks, or it is going to lose much of its interest. Regards, Steve On Tuesday, November 11, 2003, at 02:42 PM, Jens Jørgen Gaardhøje wrote: Dear Steve I have read the draft for the d+Au. I think it is a nice piece of work which is practically finished. I would suggest to proceed with submission as soon as possible and to announce right away our intention to submit in a week. Where to send it? I would suggest Physics Letters B. Perhaps it could even bear a PRL if the discussion section regarding the comparison to saturation models is beefed up a bit -although I have not had the time to study the PHOBOS paper (is there much overlap?). regards JJ ____________________________________________________________ Jens Jørgen Gaardhøje, Assoc. Prof., Dr. Sc. Niels Bohr Institute, Blegdamsvej 17, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark. Tlf: (+45) 35 32 53 09, secr. (+45) 35 32 52 09, Fax: (+45) 35 32 50 16. UNESCO Natl. Comm., secr. (+45) 33 92 52 16. Email: gardhoje@nbi.dk. ____________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Brahms-l mailing list Brahms-l@lists.bnl.gov http://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/brahms-l _______________________________________________ Brahms-l mailing list Brahms-l@lists.bnl.gov http://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/brahms-lReceived on Wed Nov 12 12:23:38 2003
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Nov 12 2003 - 12:23:48 EST