I aggree with Ian. It would be best to publish the 4 white papers and a separate summary article. These need not be in the same journal. Michael -----Original Message----- From: brahms-l-bounces@lists.bnl.gov on behalf of Ian Bearden Sent: Fri 6/18/2004 8:44 AM To: flemming videbaek Cc: brahms-l Subject: Re: [Brahms-l] Fw: White Paper Publication Action Item Are there any other journals? It seems to me that a 15 page review article is a fine idea, just not instead of the four proposed. What about Physics Reports? They take longer articles. -Ian Or has BNL decided that it must be an APS journal? On 17/6-2004, at 23:27, flemming videbaek wrote: > As a follow-up on the white paper t.kirk took the first step to see if > Mo.Rev.phys would be interested in the > output of the white-papers. The result of Tom's investigations is given > below. I will like to recieve comments from the white-paper commitee > member, > the institutions and in general. > My own impression is that this is not the best forum for the wp, in > particular writting a joint summary (with `1K scientists) seems hardly > feasible, and our contributions would be diminishe greaty > > best regards > flemming > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Flemming Videbaek > Physics Department > Brookhaven National Laboratory > > e-mail: videbaek@bnl.gov > phone: 631-344-4106 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Kirk, Tom" <tkirk@bnl.gov> > To: "Baker, Mark" <Mark.Baker@bnl.gov>; "Busza, Wit" <busza@mit.edu>; > "Hallman, Tim" <Hallman@bnl.gov>; "Videbaek, Flemming" > <videbaek@bnl.gov>; > "Zajc, Bill" <zajc@nevis.columbia.edu> > Cc: "Aronson, Sam" <aronson2@bnl.gov>; "Kirk, Tom" <tkirk@bnl.gov> > Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 4:32 PM > Subject: White Paper Publication Action Item > > >> . 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 > _______________________________________________ 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 Mon Jun 21 11:28:11 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jun 21 2004 - 11:28:33 EDT