STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG

[Roy Lacey <roy.lacey AT stonybrook.edu>]

Shinichi et al.,

                      Looking on from a distance, it is clear that the process of submitting QM abstracts via STAR is wholly broken.

The current convenor approach is akin to the Kindergarten approach, where stars are given if you show up.

It is also crystal clear that certain mergers do not make sense scientifically and should not be made by dictum.

          Personally, my current experience suggests that from now on, there is no good reason to submit abstracts via STAR because scientific merit appears to be secondary to 

varying degrees of trickery.

Thanks

Roy

On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 6:57 PM ShinIchi Esumi via Star-fcv-l <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Dear Niseem
We thought the abstract could be stronger and more attractive with merging,
considering the impact of this analysis alone and all the other abstract/topics from
fcv, including the limitation for the number of abstract. We can of course continue
to discuss what to do, but have you considered about the flow/hydro to probe the
longitudinal structure/dynamics in order to make a connection between the two
results for merging as mentioned earlier? No chance? We do agree your results
are important as well as the one from Gaoguo. Thank you very much for your
continuous activities for getting various new results. We are not trying to move
your abstract for poster just because you didn't agree.
Best regards, ShinIchi

> On Nov 18, 2021, at 3:08, Niseem Magdy via Star-fcv-l <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>
> Dear Jiangyong, Prithwish and ShinIchi,
> I didn't hear a reasonable argument from you as to why my abstract can not be a talk abstract.
> You have moved my abstract to a poster abstract because I disagree with the convener's point of view;
> this issue was never discussed with us; This is not a scientific reasoning to me. I never faced this in STAR before.
> I fully disagree with the convener's moving my abstract to be a poster abstract without any discussion.
> Thanks, Niseem
>
> On 11/17/21 11:38 AM, ShinIchi Esumi via Star-fcv-l wrote:
>> Dear Gaoguo and Niseem
>> We did not hear you back on the merging of your two abstracts. If you agree,
>> please discuss between you and go ahead to make a merged/combined abstract
>> for a combined “strong” talk as mentioned earlier. Or please propose separate
>> abstracts for two posters.
>> Best regards, Jiangyong, Prithwish and ShinIchi
>>
>>> Dear Zhenyu and Niseem
>>> Our intention was to make it more attractive to get accepted as a talk, rather
>>> than two single abstracts, which do have some relations in terms of the longitudinal
>>> dynamics, so we hoped you two could think more about in that direction. However
>>> if both of you do not intend to do this, we also need to discuss with other submissions,
>>> and/or we might need to drop one or both of them to be submitted as poster...
>>> Best regards, ShinIchi
>>> On Nov 11, 2021, at 23:46, Jiangyong Jia via Star-fcv-l <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> One possibility could be emphasize we use flow/hydro to probe the longitudinal structure of initial state and transport properties of the final state and their energy dependences. This would be able to bring the two together.
>>>
>>> Jiangyong
>>>
>>> On 11/10/21 9:56 PM, zhchen via Star-fcv-l wrote:
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>
>>>> I am not strongly against the merging of Gaoguo and Niseeem's abstracts, but I do have the concern the talk will be too dense.
>>>> After considering the man-power, data readiness and time left until QM, we propose to extend Gaoguo's abstract to cover 19.6 and 14.5 GeV Au+Au decorrelation. So it will be stronger to stand itself.
>>>> The new abstract is at https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/QM22_DeCorr_Energy_Size.pdf
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Zhenyu
>>>>
>>>> 在 2021-11-11 03:13，Niseem Magdy via Star-fcv-l 写道：
>>>>> Dear Jiangyong and All,
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the two abstracts (talk-9) are totally different. Merging them
>>>>> not be effective and will not send a clear message.
>>>>> I think that my abstract can stand by itself since it contains
>>>>> 2-projects across different energies.
>>>>>
>>>>> Therefore, I do not agree with the merging.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Niseem
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Star-fcv-l mailing list
>>> Star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov
>>> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-fcv-l
>> _______________________________________________
>> Star-fcv-l mailing list
>> Star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov
>> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-fcv-l
> _______________________________________________
> Star-fcv-l mailing list
> Star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-fcv-l

_______________________________________________
Star-fcv-l mailing list
Star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov
https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-fcv-l