Minutes190212

From Publication Committee

(I) Meeting notes

(1) Attendance -- Ryan, Guy, Fred, Beijiang (as PC). Please try to attend these meetings. Especially for discussions about policy. It's easier to do this by video than be email. Since the standing committee is only five people, if you have a conflict with the time, just let me know -- we can rearrange the date and time.

(2) PubComm review procedure -- Guy suggested we add a step to have the 1st and 2nd editors do a "final handshake" on the draft before sending it back to the authors. I added this to the procedure as step 8: https://docbes3.ihep.ac.cn/~pubcom/index.php/Procedure [I also moved the discussion about cleaning the IHEPBox folder after review.]

(3) We had a discussion of the proposed changes to the publication policy. I edited the two proposed additions based on this discussion. See below.

(4) Next meeting -- March 19/20 at the same time. We should try to finalize the proposed changes to the publication policy. And come up with a plan for the collaboration meeting (e.g. should we try to get the changes approved by the IB at that meeting?).


(II) Proposed additions to the publication policy

(1) New policy for publications using BESIII software. I modified the statement that should be included in these papers (to soften it a little):

Publications using BESIII software (BESIII Monte Carlo or reconstruction packages, etc.), but not including the full BESIII author list, are generally discouraged. There are two primary reasons: first, such publications do not give due credit to the authors of the BESIII software; second, the publication quality reflects on the credibility of the BESIII experiment even though the publication has not passed the BESIII publication procedures. Exceptions to this rule can be granted by the spokespersons. For example, sensitivity studies for a future super tau-charm factory could greatly benefit from the BESIII software. Authors are encouraged to discuss possible studies with the spokespersons at an early stage of the process in order to check that the studies are appropriate. A few guidelines should be followed:

  • The publication of sensitivity studies using BESIII software for measurements that could be improved with current BESIII data, including first measurements, are not allowed.
  • "BESIII" should not be included in the title of the publication.
  • The BESIII software group should be acknowledged.
  • The following should be included: "The results presented in this paper are those of the authors alone, and have not been reviewed by the BESIII collaboration; however, we thank our colleagues for allowing us to make use of the BESIII simulation and software environment."

(2) New policy for making data public. I tried to clarify that not all results should be submitted to HEPData. I added a sentence about four-vectors.

Authors and the review committee are encouraged to think about how published data and results might be used by theorists after publication. In some cases, it may also be beneficial to supply efficiencies or resolutions as supplementary information to a publication. Including this information as part of the review process would help ensure the quality of the information that might later be used in external analyses. Relevant published results, when judged appropriate during the review process, should also be submitted to the HEPData database. A BESIII Data Coordinator will be responsible for initiating submissions to the HEPData database. Releasing four-vectors to the public is generally discouraged -- but special cases where this could be beneficial should be discussed during the review process (i.e. before publication).


(III) Discrepancies between the BESIII author page and the publication policy

Beijiang pointed out a few discrepancies between the author page and the publication policy, both here: https://docbes3.ihep.ac.cn/~pubcom/index.php/Policies The author page is meant to be a shorter version of the publication policy that can be used for quick reference, so we should make sure they are consistent. Here are known discrepancies and proposed solutions. All proposed solutions involve changes to the author page, not the policy (the primary source). Let me know if you have objections.

(1) Step 7 on the author page addresses CWR. After CWR is finished, it says: "The paper will undergo a three day review by the collaboration." Two problems: this is not in the publication policy; and the current practice is a final 24hr review. I propose we just drop the sentence from the author page. In my opinion, the final 24hr review doesn't really need to be formalized in the policy. The final 24hr announcement is very helpful, and we should keep doing it, but it's just part of the CWR.

(2) Step 10 on the author page and point 12 in the publication policy address resubmission to a journal. The policy says 2/3 of the review committee need to approve resubmission and the author page just says the review committee. I proposee to modify the author page to also say 2/3.

(3) Also in the resubmission paragraphs, the author page says: "... the response and paper will again be posted for a review by the collaboration for three days." The policy says: "... if the Physics Coordinators judge any changes to be sufficiently significant, the resubmission should be announced to the collaboration." I proposed we remove the statement on the author page.

(4) Again in the resubmission paragraph, the author page says: "Spokespersons must approve resubmission." But this isn't in the policy. I propose we remove it from the author page.

Retrieved from "https://docbes3.ihep.ac.cn/~pubcom/index.php?title=Minutes190212&oldid=366"