[G12] Fwd: g12 review

[Johann Goetz]

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Keith Griffioen <griff at physics.wm.edu>
Date: Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 1:32 PM
Subject: Re: g12 review
To: Eugene Pasyuk <pasyuk at jlab.org>
Cc: Keith Griffioen <griff at physics.wm.edu>, Marco Battaglieri <
battaglieri at ge.infn.it>, 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>, Silvia Niccolai <niccolai at ipno.in2p3.fr>, Johann Goetz
<theodore.goetz at gmail.com>


Hi Eugene,

Speaking as DPWG Chair, let me first apologize for lack of coordination on
this matter with the Spectroscopy group.  I think what you are doing with
an umbrella analysis note is excellent.  This streamlining is a model for
the future.

Within the CLAS collaboration there has never been a one-to-one
correspondence between a run group and a working group.  Recently there has
been enough overlap between nuclear and deep-processes that we have started
to run our sessions sequentially so people can attend both.  With the
advent of deeply-virtual meson production, the overlap between deep
processes and spectroscopy is now increasing.  All of this is a good thing,
but it will require better communication between the working groups.

Ibrahim Albayrak has given talks in the Deep Processes working group on
time-like Compton scattering (a “deep” process) from g12 data in October
2012, February 2013, and June 2013.  Ibrahim and I had been in contact
during the time of his writing an analysis note, and I assigned a committee
once this note was in good form.

I see no reason why the DPWG analysis reviewers should not be informed by
the umbrella review, and, therefore, they can focus on the specifics of the
time-like Compton analysis.  This would be a model for the future, in which
the nuts-and-bolts of analysis (calibrations, cooking, momentum
corrections, etc.) are discussed in an umbrella note, and specifics are
contained in shorter, more specific individual analysis notes.

So, let’s consider this as an experiment, albeit imperfect under the
circumstances.  In the future, with better communication, we can  learn to
avoid the duplication of effort seen in this case.

Thanks,
Keith



> On Jun 30, 2015, at 10:09 AM, Eugene Pasyuk <pasyuk at jlab.org> 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/20150630/5bf668a9/attachment.html>