sPHENIX HCal discussion

[John Haggerty <haggerty AT bnl.gov>]

Craig,

Thanks for clarifying that--it's what I thought we had agreed--that we 
would wait for a full paper until after the 2018 prototype, and although 
I never heard of the "50% rule," it seems to me to be perfectly well 
satisfied by replacing the EMCAL and using production electronics--but 
the conference proceedings will demonstrate that we're on our way toward 
the final result, which will be published after the CD-1 review.

On 11/16/17 8:12 AM, Craig Woody wrote:
> Hi Megan,
>     What Martin says is correct, in that one has to be careful in what 
> one submits to the Conference Record that it doesn't prevent submitting 
> some of the same information to a later publication in TNS. I think we 
> talked about this at several of our EMCAL and HCAL meetings and decided 
> that we would be aware of this but still submit a paper to the 
> Conference Record in order to have at least a conference proceedings 
> publication for the new HCAL results, and some preliminary results on 
> the EMCAL for the large eta prototype. However, it's not true that the 
> Conference Record proceedings cannot be cited. It appears in Xplore in 
> exactly the same way as a TNS paper and is given an ISBN number and DOI 
> number like any other publication, and is completely searchable on the 
> web. The only difference is that it is listed as a Conference 
> Proceedings, which, like many other conference proceedings, do not get 
> the same level of peer review as some other publications. As an aside, 
> even this is not always true, as some conference proceedings received 
> exactly the same peer review as a TNS paper and appear as a special 
> issue of TNS, but this conference is not one of them. Nevertheless, it 
> is a citable reference and can generally be listed in one's publication 
> list under conference proceedings as opposed to peer reviewed 
> publications, which are generally listed separately anyway.
>     As far as the the actual paper goes, I read through it and I think 
> it looks fine. In fact, I think it's just what we want to submit in 
> order to later satisfy the 50% different content and self plagiarism 
> rule that Martin mentioned. The 50% rule is an NPSS publication policy 
> (actually more of a guideline...) that was implemented to get around the 
> requirement that IEEE imposed that there cannot be two publications in 
> Xplore with substantially the same content, and it's really up to the 
> Senior Editor (and ultimately the Editor in Chief) to decide whether 
> this criteria is met. I think what is in the paper now will easily allow 
> this to be satisfied with a future publication of our 2018 test beam 
> results. First of all, you nicely summarize the 2016 test beam results 
> which are presumably going to appear soon in TNS, which you would not 
> want to do in the new TNS publication (you would simply cite the 
> reference). Next, you give the EMCAL results for the measurements at the 
> center of a block, but don't give the results for the entire detector 
> because we don't want to show the poor results when we expect the new 
> results from the 2018 test to be much better. Lastly, you show the HCAL 
> and combined EMCA+HCAL results, which are fine as they are, and is 
> really the main point of having the conference record publication in the 
> first place. However, these results will also change with the 2018 test 
> since the Inner HCAL will be different and the EMCAL will also be 
> different. All of this should certainly satisfy the 50% requirement, not 
> to mention the fact that the final TNS paper will presumably be much 
> longer and will include more Monte Carlo results and analysis (similar 
> to our 2016 paper).
>       So, I think this paper will be fine to submit to the Conference 
> Record and shouldn't prevent our submitting a more complete paper with 
> the final test beam results at a later time. I view these results and 
> this paper as simply an intermediate step between our 2016 test of the 
> eta=0 prototypes and the final results we hope to have on our large eta 
> prototypes. We will of course have to mention the conference proceedings 
> paper when we submit the new TNS paper and explain the differences, but 
> I don't think that will be a problem. Unfortunately, we now have to jump 
> through all these hoops to get these kinds of papers published, which 
> wasn't true a number if years ago. Actually, NPSS was one of the IEEE 
> Societies that argued against this policy for a long time, but we 
> eventually lost the battle at IEEE. Nevertheless, the editors are very 
> sympathetic to the fact that both the conference proceedings and the 
> full journal publications do have value, but are actually there to serve 
> different purposes.
>
> Cheers,
> Craig
>
>
>
> On 11/15/2017 10:30 PM, Megan Connors wrote:
> > Hi Martin,
> >
> > We had discussed at previous calorimeter meetings the publication 
> > plans and decided that I would submit proceedings since we will not 
> > submit a publication on the 2017 beam test results alone. Instead we 
> > want to publish the results from the 2018 prototype which will include 
> > improved 2D projective blocks and therefore a hopefully improved 
> > energy resolution when the beam position requirement is relaxed. 
> > Although we are not writing a 2017 test beam paper we wanted the 
> > results publicly documented and therefore planned to submit these 
> > proceedings.
> >
> > However, I was a bit surprised by your statement that it cannot be cited?
> >
> > I'd also like to know if you worry about a future publication of the 
> > 2018 test beam results meeting the 50% rule?
> >
> > Thanks for raising this issue but I'm curious to see if others such as 
> > Craig have comments on this as well.
> >
> > Best,
> > -Megan
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 10:07 PM, Martin Purschke <purschke AT bnl.gov 
> > <mailto:purschke AT bnl.gov>> wrote:
> >
> >     Hi Megan,
> >
> >     I'm sorry that this will rain on your parade here, but (I think Craig
> >     should chime in as well) you are entering a long-standing minefield by
> >     submitting proceedings, called conference record in IEEE parlance. Let
> >     me first say that a) I won't submit one, and b) for the smaller but
> >     similar IEEE Real-Time conferences where I'm the current committee
> >     chair, we won't even offer the option to submit such a conference
> >     record, in order not to trick people into inadvertently entering said
> >     minefield. AFAIK, no one else is submitting a CR; Bob Azmoun is going
> >     for a full TNS publication with his submission, which is the real
> >     thing.
> >
> >     The issue is that even by submitting a "light" conference record
> >     as you
> >     intend to do, you may nevertheless burn this topic for subsequent
> >     IEEE-journal publication, such as the follow-up paper to the submitted
> >     test beam paper. The ominous key sentence is (in
> >     http://www.nss-mic.org/2017/Publications.asp
> >     <http://www.nss-mic.org/2017/Publications.asp>)
> >
> >     "The Conference Record (CR) [...] also will be submitted to IEEE
> >     Xplore
> >     for publication."
> >
> >     The long and short of it is that by entering *anything* into the
> >     larger
> >     IEEE Xplore universe, any subsequent submission will be held to this
> >     standard:
> >
> >     "Under these guidelines, NPSS republication policy is that any
> >     manuscript submitted to a journal must contain at least 50% more
> >     substantive content than that which appears in its [parent] conference
> >     record paper."
> >
> >     In other words, when we submit the 2017 test beam paper, you need to
> >     meet this requirement, which is really much harder than it seems. To
> >     begin with, you will later trigger an automatic plagiarism alert, and
> >     it's irrelevant that it's "self-plagiarism" - just the first sentences
> >     in the abstract, as well as the standard description of the sPHENIX
> >     apparatus, can never again be used like that. For ATLAS and CMS, where
> >     authors are encouraged not to deviate too much from the
> >     agreed-upon and
> >     polished description of their experiment, papers have been
> >     returned for
> >     that. I mean, how many substantially different variations of the fact
> >     that we are a RHIC experiment, have calorimetry, and have 2\pi
> >     coverage
> >     can you write down?
> >
> >     And we will have to convince a future Associate Editor that our
> >     new TNS
> >     paper meets the 50% rule. It can be argued that this CR already
> >     details
> >     all the high points from 2017 (the resolution and linearity
> >     figures/numbers), creating an unnecessary but very real hurdle for the
> >     full TNS paper to be accepted later.
> >
> >     Please, talk to Craig for a second opinion before Friday. IMHO,
> >     there is
> >     nothing to be gained from submitting the CR. It cannot be cited, it
> >     doesn't count as a publication, but it can still poison the well.
> >
> >     My 5cts,
> >
> >             Martin
> >
> >
> >     On 11/15/17 15:14, Megan Connors wrote:
> >     > Dear all,
> >     >
> >     > I posted a draft of the proceedings for my IEEE talk to today's HCal
> >     > agenda (link below). The deadline for submission is already this
> >     Friday
> >     > November 17! Sorry for the late posting and thanks for your
> >     quick feedback.
> >     >
> >     > https://indico.bnl.gov/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=3873
> >     <https://indico.bnl.gov/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=3873>
> >     >
> >     > Best,
> >     > -Megan
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > _______________________________________________
> >     > sPHENIX-EMCal-l mailing list
> >     > sPHENIX-EMCal-l AT lists.bnl.gov <mailto:sPHENIX-EMCal-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
> >     > https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/sphenix-emcal-l
> >     <https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/sphenix-emcal-l>
> >     >
> >
> >
> >     --
> >     Martin L. Purschke, Ph.D.        ; purschke AT bnl.gov
> >     <mailto:purschke AT bnl.gov>
> >                                      ;
> >     http://www.phenix.bnl.gov/~purschke
> >     <http://www.phenix.bnl.gov/%7Epurschke>
> >                                      ;
> >     Brookhaven National Laboratory   ;   phone: +1-631-344-5244
> >     <tel:%2B1-631-344-5244>
> >     Physics Department Bldg 510 C    ;   fax: +1-631-344-3253
> >     <tel:%2B1-631-344-3253>
> >     Upton, NY 11973-5000             ;   skype: mpurschke
> >     -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >     _______________________________________________
> >     sPHENIX-EMCal-l mailing list
> >     sPHENIX-EMCal-l AT lists.bnl.gov <mailto:sPHENIX-EMCal-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
> >     https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/sphenix-emcal-l
> >     <https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/sphenix-emcal-l>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > sPHENIX-HCal-l mailing list
> > sPHENIX-HCal-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> > https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/sphenix-hcal-l
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sPHENIX-HCal-l mailing list
> sPHENIX-HCal-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/sphenix-hcal-l


--
John Haggerty
email: haggerty AT bnl.gov
cell: 631 741 3358