[G12] Fwd: g12 review

[Johann Goetz]

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Silvia Niccolai <niccolai at ipno.in2p3.fr>
Date: Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 10:59 AM
Subject: Re: g12 review
To: Marco Battaglieri <battaglieri at ge.infn.it>
Cc: Eugene Pasyuk <pasyuk at jlab.org>, Keith Griffioen <griff at physics.wm.edu>,
Dave Ireland <david.ireland at glasgow.ac.uk>, Gerald Gilfoyle <
gilfoyle at jlab.org>, Raffaella De Vita <raffaella.devita at ge.infn.it>,
Michael Dugger <dugger at jlab.org>, Yordanka Ilieva <jordanka at jlab.org>, Lei
Guo <lguo at jlab.org>, Johann Goetz <theodore.goetz at gmail.com>


Hello all,
I confirm that the analysis review is ongoing - I am the chairman of the
DPWG committee, setup by Keith.
I think the confusion came from the fact that this work is about GPDs,
which is a typical DPWG theme, but uses g12 data.
For the record, we have given the author our first round of comments a few
weeks - and we're waiting for replies.
Regards,
Silvia

Sent from my iPhone

> On 30 Jun 2015, at 16:47, Marco Battaglieri <battaglieri at ge.infn.it>
wrote:
>
> Dear Eugene
> I was not aware of the g12 analysis review in the DPWG. I received a
request to review the g12 cascade analysis but  I'm holding till the g12
review committee (yours) will establish the status of the general g12
review.
> I totally agree with you: its a big waist of time and duplication of
efforts. Analysis review is a sensible issue that we are keeping discussing
at each collaboration meeting and we need to better coordinate any actions
in this direction. It's strange that g12 group did not pointed it out
during the discussion we had at the last collaboration meeting.
> Cheers
> Marco
>
> Eugene Pasyuk wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> It was brought to my attention that while we are working on the g12 run
group review there is another g12 analysis review ongoing in the deep
process working group. This is time-like Compton scattering.
https://www.jlab.org/Hall-B/shifts/index.php?display=admin&task=paper_review&rid=6996371&operation=view
>> This review has started in April of 2015 while the group review has
started in October 2014.
>> Interestingly enough this analysis note has twice as many pages as the
group one.
>>
>> To me it looks like a lack of coordination and communication between the
physics working groups and even within g12 group.
>> The whole point of the group review was to avoid duplication of efforts
in reviewing the same things over and over.
>>
>> Can anyone comment why did this happen and what are we going to do about
it.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> -Eugene
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/g12/attachments/20150630/5bbe447c/attachment.html>