[Primex] Tulio's reference?
tulio at if.usp.br
tulio at if.usp.br
Mon Oct 11 10:01:20 EDT 2010
Dear Collaborators,
This latest e-mail exchange makes clear that my 2010 reference was
deliberated omitted in the pi0 PRL from PrimEx. Ashot arguments are
nonsense, since my cross section tables were effectively used in the
analysis independently of any other objection to the proposed
reanalysis of Cornell`s eta decay width. Such arbitrary procedure also
shows a striking contradiction: My new results (2010) are suitable for
the PrimEx analysis, but they are not suitable to be quoted. In
contrast, old results (2005) - not even used by the PrimEx
collaboration - are suitable to be quoted.
It is even more critical that this extremely important issue of a
basic ethical principle is treated as a ?distraction? to the PrimEx
collaboration. One could speculate how the PrimEx-II shifts would be
now if events with that magnitude were properly solved with science
and democracy. But this is not my business.
Ashot, you tried to publish a comment on my PRL of eta
photoproduction, but your manuscript did not survive to the Physical
Review Letters criterion. The referee showed that your manuscript did
not have the necessary relevance and scientific substance to be
published in Physical Review Letters. Then you published the comment
as an archive. What is the effect of a comment published as an
archive? I really don`t know.
I doubt that my arguments will be enough to correct this odd
situation, since they are only scientific arguments and I am afraid
this discussion is scientifically non sensitive. I am attaching two
plots when I show the results for Carbon and Lead from the 2005 paper
in comparison with the results from 2010. The results from 2010 are
exactly the same used by Dustin in his analysis.
At this stage, I could collect these documents and send them to
Physical Review Letters. There are many e-mail messages from other
co-authors of the PRL that were never answered with physical
arguments, making clear that this was an arbitrary and isolated
decision that violates professional conduct.
However, I decided not to do this by now, since I believe that the
reputation of other members of the collaboration should not get hurt
just because of one member. Nevertheless, if this violation is in fact
confirmed with the publication of the Letter with the wrong reference,
them I will take the necessary steps to prove ethical violation.
I also take this opportunity to inform that I will not participate in
PrimEx-II anymore. It is nonsense to be in a collaboration where your
suggestions are generally "ignored" and your references are
"naturally" omitted. I do physics in my spare time and my only
compromise is with science. The Collaboration is not doing science if
most of the suggestions and comments are not taken into account and
references are not properly quoted.
I also would like to apologize to the other PrimEx members for these
last years, when I spent most of my time defending myself from
nonsense attacks instead of helping the collaboration. I also thank
for the support of several members and I am fully available and
motivated for future interactions.
With my best regards,
-Tulio E. Rodrigues
>
>
> Dustin,
>
> This particular question about the proper reference to use in
> our pi0 article was already answered in several discussions
> and particularly by me (my Aug 27, Aug 29, and Aug 30 e-mails
> to the collaboration) and other PrimEx-I colleagues in the past
> two months.
>
> Since you are bringing this issue up again, I will briefly
> restate my arguments here one last time:
>
> 1) In our pi0 PRL article we are referring to the description
> of general methods of calculations for the nuclear processes.
> In this particular case the MCMC model which was partially
> used by you for your analysis. It is rightfully referred to
> the article from 2005 where the description of the MCMC method
> is given. We are not referring to any "calculations" for any
> particular method used in our pi0 PRL paper, hope this is clear.
> However, just for everybody's interest, can you please explicitly
> point to any table which you have used from Tulio's 2010 paper
> which is not included in his 2005 paper?
>
> One more time, I repeat, the 0.3% uncertainty in our pi0 paper
> for the model dependence (which was the point of Tulio's
> contention in his Aug 30 e-mail) has nothing to do with Tulio's
> MCMC model or any of his particular results.
>
> 2) Though the above arguments already answer to the question,
> however, I will repeat my other arguments (including those of
> other collaborators) against referring to Tulio's 2010 article.
>
> In his 2010 paper, Tulio combined essentially two articles into
> one. One of them is the 2005 paper, to which we are referring,
> and the second one is from his 2008 paper about the eta-Primakoff
> (PRL 101, 012301, 2008).
>
> We have serious arguments about the scientific validity of the
> methods and the assumptions Tulio is using in his "results".
> These arguments are summarized in:
>
> arXiv:1004.0707 [nucl-ex]
>
> It would be incorrect to refer to a paper where there are very
> serious scientific issues and problems raised by a group of
> leading members in the collaboration.
>
> I hope that this is the very last discussion on this particular
> matter, and you and others will allow rest of the collaboration
> to work on the ongoing difficult experiment without unnecessary
> distractions.
>
> Ashot
>
>
> .............................................................
> Ashot Gasparian Phone:(336)285-2112 (NC A&T)
> Professor of Physics
> Physics Department (757)-269-7914 JLab
> NC A&T State University Fax:(757)-269-6273 JLab
> Greensboro, NC 27411 email: gasparan at jlab.org
> .............................................................
>
>
> On Fri, 8 Oct 2010, Dustin McNulty wrote:
>
>> Dear Collaboration,
>>
>> I wanted to give my response to the issue of which of Tulio's references
>> we should use in the publication.
>>
>> Throughout my analysis I have used Tulio's incoherent calculations. As
>> he has stated, his tables were changed several times since 2005 as he
>> made new calculations. In my final analysis I used his latest
>> calculations. As he has stated these latest calculations are reflected
>> in his 2010 publication. I therefore agree that his 2010 paper is the
>> proper one that we should quote in our PRL article.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Dustin
>> _______________________________________________
>> Primex mailing list
>> Primex at jlab.org
>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/primex
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Primex mailing list
> Primex at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/primex
>
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: NI_cs.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 53395 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/primex/attachments/20101011/f7d124af/attachment-0001.pdf
More information about the Primex
mailing list