From: Tony Spadafora (ALSpadafora@lbl.gov)
Date: Tue Feb 25 2003 - 11:04:46 PST
Hi Rob,
Quick answers:
Jha's work is not published.
WMAP results are submitted.
(My two cents on this is that you don't have to (and should not) address
unpublished results in a paper. But, knowing that they will likely
someday appear, one should benefit from the information and check
privately that they don't conflict with any results presented. If they
do, you need to be sure that you are right. )
We can discuss this at the Thursday phone call
8:00 AM PST/10:00 CST.
(I assume this time is still OK for you ? )
-Tony
"Robert A. Knop Jr." wrote:
>
> Several people have called for re-doing the analysis based on this,
> that, or the other thing. Some say, (e.g. Greg on the Jha U-band stuff)
> that "this won't cause much of a delay".
>
> I beg to differ. This will cause a HUGE delay. Doing all of these fits
> and so forth takes time. (Training somebody else to do it will take
> just as much time, so that's not a real solution.) Depending on how
> much we want to do, we should be aware that we're potentially talking
> about a lot of time. Putting in a different U-B intrinsic color means a
> solid week of work on my part-- and that's a real week, not a week
> interupted by meetings and the other things that happen. That's pretty
> early in the analysis chain (i.e. whole new uberspectrum, probably a
> whole new U-band template), and must be propogated all the way through.
> I can guarantee you that the next draft of the paper will not come out
> until April, at the earliest, if we insist on making this change. We're
> not talking about plugging in a small change for a number quoted in the
> paper, we're talking about redoing everything here.
>
> Is Jha's work published in a refereed journal, or is it just available
> as his thesis? If the latter, I think we are justified in ignoring it
> for now. If it is published, where and when?
>
> Another issue: WMAP. So far as I can tell, that work is not published
> either, just submitted. I used that as a justification not to mention
> what they'd done in the last draft Doing a lot with that -- even a lot
> of discussion -- will take time and delay the paper. If their paper
> isn't published, only submitted, we can make the argument that this is a
> "simulatenous" paper, or that their results weren't available when the
> paper was written. Reason: to get this paper out the door. That should
> be the main goal. A perfect paper will never be published; by the time
> we deal with all of that, more stuff will have come out that we will
> have to deal with, and we'll be stuck like Xeno's paradox never reaching
> the finish line. I would rather get this one out the door, and then
> write a separate paper that combines these results with WMAP results.
>
> I understand that we want to do this right. We also want to get it out
> the door. Even if there is something better around the corner, I'd
> rather we publish than we keep waiting to plug in the next best thing we
> see coming. I realize this wouldn't be an issue if I'd gotten the
> bloody draft written last August, but, well, that didn't happen.
>
> -Rob
>
> --
> --Prof. Robert Knop
> Department of Physics & Astronomy, Vanderbilt University
> robert.a.knop@vanderbilt.edu
-- Tony Spadafora ALSpadafora@lbl.gov Physics Division Tel: (510) 495-2316 Lawrence Berkeley National Lab FAX: (510) 486-6738 1 Cyclotron Road BLDG 50R5032 Berkeley, CA 94720-8160
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Feb 25 2003 - 11:04:48 PST