[Olympus] corrected mail
Belostotski, Stanislav
stanislav.belostotski at desy.de
Fri Nov 4 07:15:38 EDT 2016
Dear Douglas,
Saying on shortage of time I meant paper draft revisions, in no case the
analysis. As I understand the analysis has been completed. There is no
longer open questions and a robust result obtained. Fine.
Nevertheless, I was happy to see that our data are not in a
contradiction with VEPP3 points, otherwise ...
So I am in process now of reading the draft.
Sorry, I disagree with your statement that the analysis is done only by
the MIT group.I would say this group did an excellent job to save the
measurements carried out with the help of problematic WCs and very aged
scintillation counters. New detectors (SYMB monitor, GEMs) , except 12
deg. monitor, had also problems. So the task to recover the data was at
first look even not doable. Nevertheless the analysis was started at
DESY and at our weekly meetings there were many presentations done by
not MIT people: Norik, Denis, Yuri,UWe, etc.Though the MIT played
certainly leading role. Such that later, when analysis (together with
computer capabilities) was moved to MIT it has become clear that the
MIT group (people motivated with their Phd theses) will do "the best
possible" of this job. And gradually, people less motivated switched to
their current activities. But this is absolutely normal. Take any
collaboration-the situation is the same. The analysis is a task of a
small group of people. not all the collaboration.
Now about the paper. Its final version must be agreed with ALL authors
on a basis of CONSENSUS.This includes the author list. I would accept if
one or two persons would be put prior to the alphabetical author list.
As an exclusion, this could be done for a real leader who proposed
experiment, put it on the floor, control data taking and play a leading
role in the data analysis.
In our case we see seven !!! people before the alphabetical author list.
Note, this is more than 10% of the whole collaboration.
This is not only weird, this is misleading.
With best regards StanB
On 02.11.2016 19:34, Douglas K Hasell wrote:
> Dear Stan,
>
> We have been discussing the analysis and the results since July. Since July we have had collaboration meetings every two weeks. Since October we have had weekly meetings. I have repeatedly said that it is important to finalise this as soon as possible because people are leaving. Yet you think the period for discussion is too short!
>
> As for the order in the author list I suggest you look at the VEPP-3 and JLab two-photon publications (Adikaram et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 (2015) 062003 and Rachek et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 (2015) 062005) that are also not alphabetical but list first the people who performed the analysis.
>
> The analysis has been going on for over three years and 99 % of that effort has been done by the graduate students listed. They deserve the recognition and hopefully this helps their future careers.
>
> I acknowledge that everyone contributed to the experiment by taking shifts, providing equipment, etc. but where were these people over the past three years? Except for a few people who occasionally called into a collaboration meeting, there was effectively no participation or effort to analyse the data by any other group. The students have spent 100 % of their time on OLYMPUS for three years with help and supervision from Jan, Michael, Richard, Bob, and myself on a daily or weekly basis. I wish there had been a more active participation from the other groups. Then an alphabetic listing would have been appropriate. But that didn’t happen.
>
> If anyone asks why the author list is not alphabetical; say that these are the people who performed the analysis. Then explain why your group was not active in analysing the data. For three years this has been a constant question from the PRC without a satisfactory answer.
>
> We have published papers on the target, SYMB, and magnetic field. We will write more papers on the tracking, radiative corrections, luminosity determination, etc. These will come in the near future. Where are the papers for the MWPC, GEM, DAQ, beam energy, etc. ? It seems natural that these be written by the responsible institutes and have a small author list reflecting the people who did the work. I look forward to seeing these papers.
>
> Alexander has called for a vote. Uwe has suggested that the discussion be referred to the group leaders for a decision. I think the latter is more appropriate and suggest that all the group leaders call into the meeting on Monday, November 7, at 10:00 EST (16:00 CET) or to send me their opinion by E-mail by then.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Douglas
>
> 26-415 M.I.T. Tel: +1 (617) 258-7199
> 77 Massachusetts Avenue Fax: +1 (617) 258-5440
> Cambridge, MA 02139, USA E-mail: hasell at mit.edu
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> On Nov 2, 2016, at 07:57, Belostotski, Stanislav <stanislav.belostotski at desy.de> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Douglas and all,
>> 1.I find that the time scale for discussion around the paper is too
>> short. We should not hurry in our FIRST presentation of the OLYMPUS
>> data.Yesterday, there was a seminar in the PNPI given by A.Gramolin
>> where VEPP3 data were presented. Possible sources of systematic errors
>> were thoroughly discussed by Alexander Gramolin as well as imperfections
>> related to introducing RCs. It was long and very scrutiny presentation
>> with a thousand questions.
>> The summary slide is attached together with the OLYMPUS result (I have
>> attached for our convenience to compare). As a conclusion, the Bernauer
>> curve, as I understand one obtained by fit to the FF data, passes well
>> through both VEPP3 and OLYMPUS results. Thus, the FF -puzzle is solved.
>> Can we come to such a conclusion?
>> 2. I disagree totally with not alphabetical order of the authors. We
>> (reluctantly) agreed for that in the previus technical paper. Now the
>> DATA are to be presented. They were obtained by the joint efforts of
>> ALL collaborators. This weird order would produce questions like: "
>> Maybe your participation was marginal then?"
>> It was a long way before the analysis was started. Thus, 12 deg.
>> monitor was proposed, fabricated, tested, transported and installed by
>> the PNPI group. It shows perfect performance during the experiment and
>> partly analyzed by the PNPI group.
>> How should I, as a group leader, explain in the PNPI this strange
>> ranking? This is typical for any collaboration that the results are
>> obtained by a group of a few people while the data have been collected
>> by the whole collaboration.
>> On the other hand, I would fully support a separate publication with
>> analysis details done by a group of MIT based on already PUBLISHED
>> results. The author list in this case can be painlessly reduced to
>> those who contribute to analysis.
>> That's OK, but NOT to publish the data themselves with any ranking (!).
>> This is so evident to me that I am not sure we need any voting.
>> With best regards StanB
>>
>>
>> On 31.10.2016 16:38, Norair Akopov wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Douglas,
>>>
>>> Unfortunately I have a propblems to connect via SeeVogh.
>>>
>>> I'll read carefully the paper draft and send my comments soon.
>>>
>>> Still I have the following comments:
>>>
>>> 1. Table1: Why e.g. the systematics due to geometry (L/R asymmetry) is
>>> just fixed with 0.25%, as I remember we had quite different deviations
>>> with Q2 for this source os systematics?
>>>
>>> 2. I did not find any sentences related to the Table 2? It is not clear
>>> what is the meaning of \delta_{syst} uncorr. and \delta_{syst} corr.
>>>
>>> 3. General comment: why the alphabetic order in the author list is
>>> changed?
>>> It's not so suitable to me ask this question being the first as to the
>>> alphabetic order, but this is the general collaboration paper, and as I
>>> remember during the email discussion we had even more argumemts "pro"
>>> alphabetic order than "contra"? Anyway such not-alphabetic order
>>> immediately produces many questions, like why not all MIT people is
>>> included in the top of author list, e.g. Douglas and Richard? I was
>>> completely agree wiht the limitation of author list (and names order
>>> there) for specific papers, but this is not the case. Also who has
>>> weighted the names in the top of author list, which is not alphabetic,
>>> etc.. etc..
>>>
>>> I think at least we have to ask all people (voting?) who will share the
>>> responsibilities for published results.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Norik
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, 31 Oct 2016, Douglas K Hasell wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear Colleague,
>>>>
>>>> I just noticed that Germany is on daylight savings time so the time difference is 5 hours not 6. Therefore today’s meeting will be at 10:00 EST and 15:00 CET. Sorry for the earlier mistake and hope everyone can attend.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Douglas
>>>>
>>>> 26-415 M.I.T. Tel: +1 (617) 258-7199
>>>> 77 Massachusetts Avenue Fax: +1 (617) 258-5440
>>>> Cambridge, MA 02139, USA E-mail: hasell at mit.edu
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Olympus mailing list
>>>> Olympus at mit.edu
>>>> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/olympus
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Olympus mailing list
>>> Olympus at mit.edu
>>> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/olympus
>>>
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
>> Name: VEPP3.pdf
>> Type: application/pdf
>> Size: 117825 bytes
>> Desc: not available
>> Url : http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/olympus/attachments/20161102/c8b079a1/attachment.pdf
>> _______________________________________________
>> Olympus mailing list
>> Olympus at mit.edu
>> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/olympus
>
_______________________________________________
Olympus mailing list
Olympus at mit.edu
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/olympus
More information about the Olympus
mailing list