[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: GSC 00279 00321 paper



Ok, here is my new draft:

http://www.lolife.com/gsc279-321/paper.pdf

I read a bunch of IBVS articles. Many are doing science beyond my means, 
but it was very helpful. I also found many similar RR Lyrae papers which 
seems consistent with this star.

I have used the feedback from the TASS list to help formulate my theory 
but I haven't found anyone willing to sign their name to this thing, so in 
terms of the type of variable, I am doing the best I can.

I added references to TASS. I could not find anything published on the 
Mark IV so I referenced a Mark III paper. Please let me know if there is a 
more appropriate reference.

I rewrote my title and abstract. I am putting more emphasis on TASS, since 
that is where the discovery came from. Let me know if this makes anyone 
uncomfortable.

Once I incorporate any additional feedback from y'all, I'm going to 
convert it to TeX and submit to the IBVS and see what happens. I 
appreciate all your help and patience.

Cheers,
Michael Koppelman

On Tuesday, June 4, 2002, at 10:23  AM, aah@nofs.navy.mil wrote:

> 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
>
>

Michael Koppelman <michael@clockwork.net>
CTO

Clockwork Active Media Systems
Expertise in the Internet Marketplace
http://www.clockwork.net/
(763)443-2048