Subject: Re: final papers (revised)
From: Nathaniel P. Longley (longleyn@macalester.edu)
Date: Tue Feb 22 2000 - 09:53:31 EST
Ed et al.,
I think this sounds fine. One way to resolve the technical paper issue, of
course, is by simple default: if no one volunteers, then we don't have one.
Nevertheless there is another point: if we _do_ go with a technical paper,
there is of course the chance that the physics paper will depend upn it. Thus
those who argue for a technical paper, while it is nominally a pretty good
idea, wil have to supply the person-power required to get it done, and in an
extremely timely fashion.
Nat
Ed Kearns wrote:
> Dear macro-rare and Doug,
>
> Based on some email discussions, we propose the following plan
> for final papers. This is somewhat revised from the collaboration
> meeting.
>
> (1) Long, comprehensive article on magnetic monopoles
> - wfd data set completed 1-May-2000 (wfd removed)
> - additional livetime for other systems is allowed/expected
> if it does not delay the paper
> - Phys. Rev. D, submission by 1-Mar-2001
> - top priority
>
> (1a) If in putting this paper together the sections describing the various
> searches become seriously disproportinal and the need for separate technical
> papers is apparent, we can evaluate and examine how to do it at that time.
>
> (2) Short paper quoting final nuclearite limits.
> (3) Possible short paper on catalysis, otherwise discussed in (1).
> (4) Possible short paper quoting final LIP limits.
>
> Thanks, Ed on behalf of many contributors to the discussion
> especially Laura and Erik.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Tue Feb 22 2000 - 09:53:36 EST