Re: GSC 00279 00321 paper

[aah@nofs.navy.mil]

Michael K. wrote:
>0. Read and re-read the Editorial Notes and authors instructions at IBVS.
  Also look at about a hundred of the existing, recent IBVS articles.  These
  will give you a flavor of the kind of information generally presented.
>1. Figure out what kind of variable it is.
  Most important step.  You really should not submit an article to IBVS
  or elsewhere on an individual star without a thorough study.  This means
  light curve, classification and some analysis such as period determination,
  period changes (for known stars) and perhaps some modelling if it is
  a run-of-the-mill eclipsing variable.  Less information won't mean a
  rejected paper, but more information is the right way to go for
  maximal scientific value.  Sometimes this means collaborating with others
  who might have skills that you are missing, or delaying publication until
  more data is acquired.
>2. Do a better job of references.
  See #0
>3. Get consistent on nomenclature.
  For TASS, a better way of identifying the filters is
     Johnson V and Cousins Ic filters
   We don't have a journal reference for the Mark IV survey yet, but you
   can always reference Michael R.'s PASP paper or my JAAVSO paper to
   indicate prior instrumentation and current direction.
>4. Get a better title and abstract.
  Not absolutely necessary, but helpful for the reader.  Usually the
  paper contains the star identification in the title, such as
    "The Variability of GSC 00279-00321" or
    "GSC 00279-00231: a new W UMa eclipsing binary"
>5. Get it in TeX format (which I was planning on doing once I had it
>finished).
  Note: IBVS will accept other formats, usually plain ascii and html.
Most journals will now accept Microsoft Word as well.  Figures
can be in postscript or gif/jpeg.  However, TeX is
the default format for all astronomical publications, so it pays
to learn at least enough TeX to take an existing paper and modify
it to your needs (a highly recommended technique for IBVS since
you can get the TeX source to all papers at their web site).
There are several on-line TeX tutorials.

Not mentioned, but #6:  keep submitting rough drafts to the list!
There are several people here who have published hundreds of scientific
papers and can guide you through the process (but keep a *very* thick
skin!).  It is far better for TASS to be careful on the first few
publications so that the quality and information content are high,
indicating good research; and that all descriptions are technically correct
(such as the filter descriptions or method of astrometric/photometric
calibration).  To some extent, reputations of people associated with
TASS (and TASS itself) are on the line, so everyone should be
considerate of the group as a whole, even if it is an individual's
paper.  I usually recommend that someone's first scientific publication
be a joint publication with other team members so that they don't have
to learn all of the publication steps by themselves.  This is
certainly not a hard-and-fast rule, though!
Arne