Re: GSC 00279 00321 paper

[Tom Droege <tdroege2@earthlink.net>]

I second most of this.  Particularly the part about keeping a thick skin 
and repeated posting to the tass list.  You will get lots of criticism, 
some of it even constructive.  ;^)  In the end you will have a much better 
paper than if you just went off on your own.

Don't be discouraged Michael K.  It is going to take longer than you 
expected.  But you will end up with a better publication.  Do not fear that 
someone will publish first.  We run in the open, so someone could steal the 
data and publish ahead of you.  That is OK.  Everyone will know what 
happened.  You will gain by being thorough and will get proper credit in 
the end for your good work.

I particularly agree with the reputation issues.  Still, I stand by my 
"tass has no rules" position.  Someone could set up a parallel organization 
with rules, but it will not be tass.  My position is that tass as an 
association of people does certain things.  Individuals or groups of 
individuals publish.  So the reputation is for individuals.  tass (I hope) 
is reputation neutral.  This at least as to results.  The reputation I wish 
to guard for tass is that of an association of individuals who have 
gathered together to work in an area of science.  Here I will press 
strongly (as one individual) to support the free interchange of ideas which 
I think is the basis of good science.

One thing, when referencing tass one should probably write it TASS to 
emphasize that it is an acronym.  Us (converted) linux folk tend to write 
in lower case.

I think the filters are properly Bessell, as I previously posted.  But Arne 
or Michael can state the proper way to refer to them.

Tom Droege

At 08:23 AM 6/4/02 -0700, you wrote:
>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