[G12] Fwd: g12 review

[Johann Goetz]

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Silvia Niccolai <niccolai at ipno.in2p3.fr>
Date: Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:42 PM
Subject: Re: g12 review
To: Dave Ireland <David.Ireland at glasgow.ac.uk>
Cc: Eugene Pasyuk <pasyuk at jlab.org>, Marco Battaglieri <
battaglieri at ge.infn.it>, Keith Griffioen <griff at physics.wm.edu>, 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 again,
I am not aware of what are the analysis details that will be part of the
big g12 note. However, bear in mind that TCS has quite a peculiar final
state, with an electron-positron pair, which may be unusual for
photoproduction analyses, and as such may require its own set of PID and
fiducial cuts, different from the g12 standards. But, once again, I have
really no idea of what the big g12 note contains.
If you decide to "freeze" the review, make sure to inform the author, who
may be working on our comments.
Btw, the majority of our comments were on aspects that are very specific of
that channel (acceptance corrections, observables extracted, physics
conclusions, etc), so I don't think there can be overlap with Eugene's &
co's work.
Regards,
Silvia

Sent from my iPhone

> On 30 Jun 2015, at 17:46, Dave Ireland <David.Ireland at glasgow.ac.uk>
wrote:
>
> Hi Eugene,
>
> This is very unfortunate. It is a real pity that this was not caught at
the collaboration meeting, but is perhaps another indication of how
difficult the review process is to streamline.
>
> In my view, to benefit from the large amount of work that your committee
has put into this review, I would favour blocking the further progress of
any g12 review (spectroscopy or deep processes) until your committee has
concluded its charge. That way, the collaboration can be assured that all
g12 analyses were treated equally. I hope that a consequence of this will
be to encourage communication within the g12 run group.
>
> I would suggest therefore to put on hold the next round of review for the
time-like compton scattering  analysis. The committee for that analysis
should really benefit from not having to check absolutely all aspects of
the analysis (provided that the g12 folks do things consistently).
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>
>
>> On 06/30/15 15:09, 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
> <David_Ireland.vcf>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/g12/attachments/20150630/29be3625/attachment.html>