[Clascomment] OPT-IN: Differential cross sections and polarization observables from the CLAS Kâ photoproduction and search for new Nâ states

[Igor Strakovsky]

Dear Ken,

Personally, I do not think that was a right decision.  You have to
understand  that is a precedent.  There are
no CLAS Collaboration *experimental* (not analysis) papers with the first
author who was out of the analysis
of the real experimental data.  If majority of the CLAS Collaboration will
accept your position then that is all
what I can say now

Thanks for your prompt reaction,
Igor

-----
Igor Strakovsky, SAID INS The George Washington University
Tel: 571-553-8344,Skype: igors1945_2, Fax: 202-994-3001
Cell: 703-728-5627, Emails: igor at gwu.edu, igor at jlab.org

On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 7:00 PM, Hicks, Kenneth <hicks at ohio.edu> wrote:

> Dear Igor,
>
> Thank you for your comment, but my student, Wei Tang, already was first
> author on the cross section paper (see Ref. [4] of the paper under
> review).  Alexey did most of the work for this follow up paper.  I think he
> clearly deserves to be first author.  These decisions are best reached by
> the group of lead authors and I am very comfortable with the order of
> authors given.
>
> Best regards,
> Ken
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Igor Strakovsky <igor at gwu.edu>
> Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2016 6:02:18 PM
> To: clasmbr at jlab.org; clascomment at jlab.org; Hicks, Kenneth;
> mokeev at jlab.org; jprice at csudh.edu; tangwei at jlab.org
> Subject: OPT-IN:  Differential cross sections and polarization observables
> from the CLAS  Kâ photoproduction and search for new Nâ states
>
> Dear Ken, Alexey, Eberhard, Viktor, and Andrey,
>
> Thank you very much for a good piece of physics.  It is difficult to write
> comments after Dan Carman.
>
> My main concern is not about physics.  I do not think that Alexey can be
> the first author of the CLAS experimental paper. He did nothing for
> analysis, did not take shifts and so
> on.   Sorry, Alexey, nothing personal.  My suggestion is that Ken
> (corresponding author)
> or his student must be the first.
>
> Then back to physics...
>
> 1) pg 1, left, 1st phrase: "The threshold...": I do not think that this
> phrase does make any sense - please rephrase it
>
> 2) pg 1, left 3rd phrase: This statement is wrong.  Then I disagreed with
> the Volker's position which is a misinterpretation of our GW SAID results
> (latest PWA of piN elastic scattering data).  Our position is solid - there
> is no evidence to support P11(1710).
> You have to rephrase or skip it.
>
> That is all by now,
> Igor
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/clascomment/attachments/20160522/6e703fb3/attachment.html>