Dear Collaborator, I will like to keep you informaed on the status on the following question: Where and how should the white-papers be published? After the presentations last month it was agreed that it would be useful to have the whitepaper published in a joint publication, and the initial thought was RevModernPhys. Tom Kirk had approached RMP , which turned out not to be interested in publishing this. Brant Johnson then pursued discussion with PRC (another APS journal) if they would be interested in these white-paper. Tom Kirk at this point gave the baton to Brant, and with a handoff to Sam Aransons too. There was an extensive exchange of e-mails that only yesterday was brought to the collaborations knowledge after I pursued the matter The present outcome is somewhat different from original expectations .I cite from Brant a summary. "The bottom line is that PRC [not RMP] is (a) very interested in having these white papers submitted to them as a set of regular articles, and (b) APS would be reluctant to grant permission to have so many of the figures that already appeared in PRL and PRC to be reprinted in any non-APS journal. With submission to PRC this is not a problem. However, as you will see in the thread below, PRC editors do stress that the White Papers should do more than simply summarize or review previous publications." Mark Baker has proposed the spokespeople+ writing committee chair discuss how to proceed in a meeting to be held soon. Thus I need to get feedback from the writing group and the collaboration what our position should be. A publication in PRC is possible, but will certainly require a bit re-writing to have 'value added' content and written to now Nuclear Physicists as the target audience. I expect such meeting will take place within a week. Best regards Flemming Attached below - extensive correspondence with BJ, TK and PRC editors. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Flemming Videbaek Physics Department Brookhaven National Laboratory e-mail: videbaek@bnl.gov phone: 631-344-4106 >From Brat J to exp. Dear Mark, Tim, Flemming, Wit, and Bill, Sorry for my "mistake" of attempting to coordinate through Tom Kirk. As Mark requested, I include below (in chronological order) the thread of messages that went back and forth between Tom Kirk and me, preceded by my last message to Tom encouraging him to forward the thread to all of you. The bottom line is that PRC [not RMP] is (a) very interested in having these white papers submitted to them as a set of regular articles, and (b) APS would be reluctant to grant permission to have so many of the figures that already appeared in PRL and PRC to be reprinted in any non-APS journal. With submission to PRC this is not a problem. However, as you will see in the thread below, PRC editors do stress that the White Papers should do more than simply summarize or review previous publications. In particular note that the potential handling editor Chris Wesselborg told me: > The only reservation Chris expressed is that all four > collaborations should do their best to prepare quality manuscripts with > emphasis on the novelty of the contents of each manuscript. In other > words, PRC does not usually publish review articles, so we would need to > stress that each paper is more than simply a review or summary of > previous results, but rather has additional "value added" material that > goes beyond what has already been published, even though most of the > plots themselves may have already been published. I am confident that each collaboration can do this by stressing the connections and interpretations of results from their own and other experiments. Perhaps some of the previously published plots could be re-drawn to include theory curves or comparisons with other data, when appropriate. However, in most cases the plots could simply be used again with perhaps new words of explanation. The main additional caution is from the PRC Edtior Ben Gibson, who says: > Ben responds that the four manuscripts could certainly be considered by > PRC. Ben cautions that we would have to see how the referees react. Thus, these papers will be treated the same as any other submissions to PRC. Chris Wesselborg also suggests: > It might be good if the four groups accompanied each submission with a > succinct statement that explains the rationale for including previously > published material and what the groups consider the novelty of the > paper. The handling editor might decide to send this along with each > referral, perhaps in addition with any other referee instructions. Regards, Brant P.S. As to the meta white paper that Sam mentioned, I said in a message to Tom copied below: > Glad you agree that this [PRC] is a good approach for the four White > Papers. It seems to me that this does not in any way preclude a global > review article by a few people for RMP. If that paper followed the four > White Papers, then it could serve as the global summary for the general > scientist/reader with references to the four white papers and specific > references therein. However, all the hard work that has gone into > producing the four White Papers would appear first in PRC with the full > author lists of the four collaborations. As you will see below, Tom Kirk responded: > This route [PRC for the four White Papers] clearly leads to articles for > the expert HI community rather than the general scientist/physicist > reader. That is fine. The RMP paper would be addressed to the general scientist/physicist reader. ========================================================================== Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 11:15:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Brant Johnson <brant@bnl.gov> To: "Kirk, Tom" <tkirk@bnl.gov> Cc: Sam Aronson <aronsons@bnl.gov> Subject: Re: White Paper Publication Action Item Dear Tom and Sam, I am pleased to report that Chris Wesselborg received an encouraging response from Ben Gibson. Now that submission to PRC seems to be an editorially welcomed approach, you may wish to forward our messages on this topic to the four Spokespersons. To make that easier I include below the thread of our discussion in chronological order (with the latest message from Chris last). Please let me know, if you have any further questions or if I can be of further assistance in any way. Best regards, Brant > On Mon, 21 Jun 2004, Brant Johnson wrote: > > Dear Tom, > > Bill Zajc forwarded me your message concerning publication of the > four White Papers. Because I do consulting work with the APS as an > Associate Editor for three APS journals and have a long term association > with Marty Blume, I met with him briefly this morning to discuss this > issue as a representative of the RHIC experimental community, not just > PHENIX. > > While waiting to meet with Marty, I ran into Jack Sandweiss (who > also works both sides of the street). Jack, Marty, and I agree that the > best journal for publishing the four White Papers is probably Phys. Rev. > C, rather than Rev. Mod. Phys. The argument is that each serves as an > expanded article relative to not one, but to an overall set of previous > papers published in PRL and PRC. At Marty's suggestion I discussed this > with Chris Wesselborg, who is the handling editor for all RHI submissions > to PRC (and now also PRL). > > Chris agrees that PRC might welcome these papers and he agreed to > discuss the idea with Ben Gibson (PRC Editor). Chris was especially > receptive to the argument that we would like to keep these papers in the > APS family of journals, because most of the plots have already appeared in > PRL or PRC. For example, if they were submitted to Physics Reports, APS > might be reluctant to give copyright permission to reproduce such a large > number of plots which originally appeared in APS journals. > > The only reservation Chris expressed is that all four > collaborations should do their best to prepare quality manuscripts with > emphasis on the novelty of the contents of each manuscript. In other > words, PRC does not usually publish review articles, so we would need to > stress that each paper is more than simply a review or summary of previous > results, but rather has additional "value added" material that goes beyond > what has already been published, even though most of the plots > themselves may have already been published. > > I will let you know when Chris relays to me the reaction from > Ben Gibson. Of course, you should also feel free to contact Ben > or Chris directly yourself. If you want to meet with me or discuss > things further by e-mail or phone, let me know. > > Regards, Brant > On Mon, 21 Jun 2004, Kirk, Tom wrote: > > Thanks, Brant. I will await your further reports. This route > clearly leads to articles for the expert HI community rather than > the general scientist/physicist reader. That is fine. > Tom On Mon, 21 Jun 2004, Brant Johnson wrote: > Tom, > > Glad you agree that this is a good approach for the four White > Papers. It seems to me that this does not in any way preclude a global > review article by a few people for RMP. If that paper followed the four > White Papers, then it could serve as the global summary for the general > scientist/reader with references to the four white papers and specific > references therein. However, all the hard work that has gone into > producing the four White Papers would appear first in PRC with the full > author lists of the four collaborations. > > I will keep you posted as Chris and Ben Gibson respond further. > > Regards, Brant ----- Forwarded message ---- Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 10:01:14 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Wesselborg <chrisw@ridge.aps.org> To: Brant Johnson <brant@bnl.gov> Cc: Debbie Brodbar <debbie@ridge.aps.org>, gibson@aps.org Subject: Re: Are the four RHIC Collaboration papers welcomed by PRC? Brant, Ben responds that the four manuscripts could certainly be considered by PRC. Ben cautions that we would have to see how the referees react. It might be good if the four groups accompanied each submission with a succinct statement that explains the rationale for including previously published material and what the groups consider the novelty of the paper. The handling editor might decide to send this along with each referral, perhaps in addition with any other referee instructions. I conclude that we can handle these manuscript much like any other submission. We will probably coordinate their review. For those that have been accepted, we will also coordinate their production and publication. One option is to treat them as serial papers, at least in production. That would also place 'see also' links on the online articles. I hope this information is useful. Chris _______________________________________________ Brahms-l mailing list Brahms-l@lists.bnl.gov http://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/brahms-lReceived on Wed Jul 14 15:20:33 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jul 14 2004 - 15:21:03 EDT