posted
Woot! My thesis defense is set for February the 2nd. Only one year late! It'll be recorded, so you will be able to learn all about D0 mixing, should that be your desire.
Also, the latest draft of my thesis contains the phrase "warning of the coming robot uprising".
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
I predict your committee will require revisions amounting to 2-6 weeks of additional work, depending on whether they see their collective shadow or not.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Woot! My thesis defense is set for February the 2nd. Only one year late! It'll be recorded, so you will be able to learn all about D0 mixing, should that be your desire.
Good luck!
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Also, the latest draft of my thesis contains the phrase "warning of the coming robot uprising".
I'd pass you just for that.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, well, it's a problem when you have 600 people in one collaboration. The accelerator physicists do just as much physics work as the analysts, but it's not the sort of thing that produces papers, so how do you give them credit? Our solution is that every member is an author on every paper. Over at CERN they have 2000 members...
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ouch, and we're all stressed at my work because we have a 40 author paper. Most of our collaborators for this particular project were outsiders and/or amateur astronomers. We have to (politely) get their feedback on the paper and let them know that they can't tell anybody about it or put it on their website until it actually gets published, otherwise the journal will not take it. Sigh.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:or put it on their website until it actually gets published, otherwise the journal will not take it.
That's very strange. The norm in physics, and what's gradually becoming the norm in social science, is to put up preprints on services like arXiv. I'm surprised astronomy journals are so restrictive.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:A paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1993 reported on a clinical trial conducted in 1,081 hospitals in 15 different countries, involving a total of 41,021 patients. There were 972 authors listed in an appendix and authorship was assigned to a group. In the summer of 2008, an article in high-energy physics was published describing the Large Hadron Collider, a 27 mile long particle accelerator that crosses the Swiss-French border; the article boasts 2,926 authors from 169 research institutions.
quote:or put it on their website until it actually gets published, otherwise the journal will not take it.
That's very strange. The norm in physics, and what's gradually becoming the norm in social science, is to put up preprints on services like arXiv. I'm surprised astronomy journals are so restrictive.
Astronomy very much uses the astro-ph section of arXiv, but we're sending Nature this particular paper. Nature's such a weird journal- sure it's got "snob" value and people outside your field see it, and it's good for "new" type results, but you have a huge word limit, and you can't really explain anything except in the captions.
We made a website with a check box, and we are snailing people drafts. They could scan them or type the paper, but it might occur to them that the agreement is being violated more than, say, a facebook post with a "look what I helped with" caption.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, yeah, Nature is overly snobby about that sort of thing. And I say that having a friend who works on their cutting edge services (who agrees with me )
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[The Wave]](graemlins/thewave.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
