Dear NP'ers, Please find appended below the modified instructions regarding conference approval for new analysis. These grew out of discussions in the conveners meeting during March. Regards, John and Sarah =============================================================================== For new analyses or significant updates to old analyses that are proposed for public dissemination (e.g. as conference presentations or submissions, preprints, and/or publications), we reaffirm and clarify D0's policies. Taking advantage of D0's rapid transition to electronic document retrieval, we add some minor posting requirements. To describe the sequence of events in the approval of such an analysis for public dissemination, we define the following terms: - A "paper" is a publication, preprint, conference submission, or conference proceedings contribution. - "T" is a "time of no return". For a conference presentation, T is the speaker's last day at D0 before leaving for the conference. For a paper, T is the time at which the draft is posted for collaboration review. Where both a conference and a paper are involved, T is the earlier time. For example, for a departure on Tues. June 3, to the the upcoming Stony Brook (HIC 97) conference, "T - 3 weeks" is Tu, 13 May 97 (analysis note posted) "T - 1 week" is Tu, 27 May 97 (final physics group approval and at least provisional EB approval) - "t" is the current time. - "Proponent" refers to the (often multiple) proponent(s) of the analysis in question. The proponent is not necessarily the same as the speaker. - The "spokespersons and physics coordinator" have agreed to speak with one voice on approvals of analyses. A decision from one is sufficient. In particular cases they may delegate approval to the physics group convenors. - "Physics group" recommendations involve substantial participation by the convenors of that group, and are communicated by its convenors. t << T-3 weeks: Analysis is completed and physics note is written (in electronic form). This note includes the plots and tables of results that are to be disseminated. These need not be pretty, but must contain the information. The note should also include or reference enough electronically available text and backup material so that a D0 collaborator who is generally familiar with other work of that physics group can judge whether the proposed analysis is sound. A suitably planned physics note should suffice for use of both the EB and the physics group itself. There should be no need to write documents specifically for the EB. t < T-3 weeks: Physics group recommends that the analysis is sufficiently advanced that the proponent should seek EB approval for its public dissemination. The physics group may approve the analysis at this time, or, in difficult cases, it may wait until (T-1 week) to grant final approval. However, at this point the physics group must feel that it is likely to be able to recommend approval of the analysis without significant modifications to it. t <= T-3 weeks: Proponent posts analysis note on a protected web location and communicates the URL to all who are directly concerned (EB chair, physics group and subgroup convenors, etc.). Proponent informs the EB of the need for a meeting and of the time frame within which a recommendation is needed. Proponent posts a message in the D0News general folder giving the note's URL and stating that the analysis is being considered for public dissemination. Note that the responsibility and authority for posting a *publication draft* (not an analysis note) for review by the full collaboration rests with the *EB*, not with the author(s). t <= T-1 week: Physics group recommends (or does not recommend) that the analysis be approved for public dissemination. EB recommends (or does not recommend) that the analysis be approved for public dissemination. A positive recommendation may be made finally, or it may be made provisionally. If this EB recommendation is not provisional, spokespersons and physics coordinator approve (or do not approve) the analysis for public dissemination. In the case of "high profile" analyses so designated by the spokespersons and physics coordinator, a D0 presentation of the proposed analysis is made, including the same results that are proposed to be made public. The presentation should be well advertised with adequate time for questions. t <= T-2 weekdays: If the first EB recommendation was provisional, the EB finally recommends (or does not recommend) that the analysis be approved for public dissemination. If the first EB recommendation was provisional, spokespersons and physics coordinator approve (or do not approve) the analysis for public dissemination. Discussion "Eleventh hour" approvals: In the above schedule, final approval by the physics group and provisional approval by the EB could be granted as little as 1 week before the speaker leaves. However, assuming that the EB is adequately responsive, in fact the proponent determines the actual schedule. We advise proponents not to gamble on receiving eleventh hour approval. If such a gamble is taken, a backup plan should be in place, such as presenting older material or switching to an alternate topic and/or speaker. Usually it will be to the proponent's advantage to adopt a much more conservative schedule. Communication with the EB should be established early in the process, for example by exchanging drafts of the analysis note. Specific concerns of the EB thereby can be addressed in advance, without placing the proposed talk in jeopardy or raising the level of stress on all concerned. Changes in approved analyses: The results in the same analysis note that was posted for the EB and the collaboration (at t <= T-3 weeks) are the results to be disseminated in public. If an error in the analysis is found after the note is posted, it should be communicated as soon as possible to the convenors. If the convenors determine that the error is material, they should notify the EB chair, spokespersons, and physics coordinator immediately, who will consult with the convenors and the proponent on a course of action. For example, if the error is well understood and well contained, the proposed talk might be modified appropriately even after final approval. If the error is judged to be sufficiently minor, the talk might proceed unmodified. Otherwise a backup plan such as those discussed above would be put in place. Practice talks: If a conference presentation is planned, at least one practice talk normally should be advertised and held. Normally this should be distinct from the work of the EB in approving an analysis. Critiquing and shaping the conference presentation is the responsibility of the physics group.