[Brahms-l] Fw: White Paper Publication Action Item

For your information and considerations. I see a wide agreement in not
changing the basic content of the white-papers, but what will happen next is
not so obvious.

flemming


----------------------------------------------------------------
Flemming Videbaek
Physics Department
Brookhaven National Laboratory

e-mail: videbaek@bnl.gov
phone: 631-344-4106
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Hallman, Timothy J" <hallman@bnl.gov>
To: "Kirk, Thomas B" <tkirk@bnl.gov>; "'Baker, Mark '" <Mark.Baker@bnl.gov>;
"'Busza, Wit '" <busza@mit.edu>; "Videbaek, Flemming" <videbaek@bnl.gov>;
"Zajc, William" <zajc@nevis.columbia.edu>
Cc: "'Aronson, Sam '" <aronson2@bnl.gov>; "Hallman, Timothy J"
<hallman@bnl.gov>
Sent: Monday, June 21, 2004 9:07 AM
Subject: RE: White Paper Publication Action Item


> Hi Tom.
>
>  At least in the case of the STAR whitepaper, it is not
>  a general overview of everything that has been done,
>  but a focused treatise on the question have we seen
>  the QGP. Given the work that has gone into it,
>  STAR will publish this one way or another as it
>  is (with final refinements) either jointly or
>  separately if that is the way things go. If there is
>  another shorter joint publication, we will be
>  happy to contribute to that although that will
>  likely be a different writing team (the existing
>  one has other commitments) and because it is joint
>  it will no doubt take longer; the timeframe
>  for the existing STAR whitepaper to go public will
>  continue to be the same as we discussed on Monday.
>
>                          Regards,
>
>                              Tim
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kirk, Thomas B
> To: Baker, Mark; Busza, Wit; Hallman, Timothy J; Videbaek, Flemming; Zajc,
> William
> Cc: Aronson, Sam; Kirk, Thomas B
> Sent: 6/17/2004 4:32 PM
> Subject: White Paper Publication Action Item
> Importance: High
>
> . June 17, 2004
>
> RHIC Colleagues:
>
> I took an action item on Monday afternoon
> to explore APS publishing venues for the
> white papers.  Not surprisingly, the
> natural choice emerged as Reviews of Modern
> Physics (RMP) when I discussed this topic with
> Marty Blume, Editor in Chief of the APS
> journals.  He urged me to contact Tony
> Starace, the editor of the 'Colloquium'
> section of the RMP.  I succeeded in reaching
> Tony today by phone and he confirmed that
> recent RHIC results would likely be a good
> topic for the 'Colloquium' section of RMP.
>
> As is often the case, there was not a
> perfect match with what we imagined as we
> discussed this on Monday.  In particular,
> he pointed me to the appropriate website
>    http://rmp.aps.org/ from which you
> proceed to 'Colloquium Guidelines' and then
> to 'Colloquium Submissions', to find the
> conditions for RMP publication.  These do not
> match to 4 serial papers of the length we
> saw on Monday.
>
> Tony suggested that it would be appropriate,
> for engaging the serious general scientific
> reader, to submit a single article of not more
> than 20 RMP pages, hopefully written by one or
> two authors who would be selected for their
> writing skills and who would credit all the
> members of the Collaborations.
>
> Tony also noted that an alternate review venue
> is an archival type of review that is intended
> for the expert in the field.  I don't think
> this second review is what we are talking
> about.  Each collaboration can, on their own,
> organize and produce such an expert review
> if they wish to do this.  It would not be
> appropriate for RMP as I heard it today.
>
> >From this information, I suggest that each
> of you think about the feasibility of taking
> our first concept of a 4-5 page summary paper,
> followed by the four white papers, and
> substitute a single article of 15 +/- 5 pages
> that would summarize the results so far for
> the general scientific reader.  This would go
> beyond Tom and Lary's Physics Today article
> by presenting sufficient detail to actually
> show in some detail (text and graphs) what has
> been learned so far.  Consult the URLs above.
>
> I promised Tony to consult with you and get back
> to him next week.  This email is intended to
> initiate that consultation.  Please respond
> in a timely way.
>
> Thanks, Tom
>


_______________________________________________
Brahms-l mailing list
Brahms-l@lists.bnl.gov
http://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/brahms-l