Re: GSC 00279 00321 paper

[Michael Koppelman <lolife@bitstream.net>]

Thanks for all the continued input. I do have a pretty thick skin. I look at
this paper-writing project the same way I look at my observing projects: the
goal is much more to learn than to contribute. I will do much better at
contribution the more I learn. I am not in a rush, per se, but I do like to
keep things moving. I am a high-energy guy.

It is somewhat news to me that a paper which identifies a new star but does
not answer all its question is not seen to be of any real value. I figured
the community would appreciate notification of a new object that needs
study. I do not have most of the tools to study this star, including
geographic coverage, spectroscopy, full BRVI capabilities or even much
astrophysical knowledge. I see myself as a soldier who can provide
enthusiastic data to folks, but I can't really lead the charge (yet).

Perhaps I am over-reaching and should just post the star to the AAVSO, VSNET
and CBA and let them to the heavy lifting?

Cheers,
Michael Koppelman


On 6/4/02 11:31 AM, "Tom Droege" <tdroege2@earthlink.net> wrote:

> 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
> 
> 
>