CERN - European Organization for Nuclear Research - Physics Department - NA62

NA62 Editorial Board Procedure

Editorial Board mandate

  • Ensure that highest scientific standards are applied to NA62 publications
  • Make sure that the CERN publication policy is respected
  • Stimulate discussion of the draft papers

What is NOT in EB mandate

  • Detector-related papers are left to the responsibility of the sub-group involved in the design/construction/test /testbeams analyses of the sub-detectors. However, authors are expected to comply with the following Good practice and Guides lines (endorsed by the Steering Committee on June 2, 2016):
    •  a standard "acknowledgement statement “ will be provided by the EB for inclusion in such technical papers;
    •  a proper reference to the NA62 Detector paper (once available) will be mandatory;
    •  no reference to internal notes, private communications, unpublished work, and more generally to any material non-publicly available should be quoted;
    •  only physics plots approved by the Collaboration should be used (as in any public occasion such as seminars, conference talks, reports to committees/funding agencies, posters,publications..).
  • Authors list is defined by the Institutes within the Steering Committee. It may be publication dependent
  • The Conference Committee (who appoints speakers to conferences) is an independent body
  • Conference Proceedings are subjected to a fast and light review by autonomous panels to ensure constant quality:
    • J. Engelfried and R. Fantechi for Detector/Instrumentation Conferences
    • C. Biino and M. Piccini have served efficiently for five years on the Physics Conferences review panel.
    • On March 17 2016 , the Steering Committee has endorsed the following modification: Each proceeding contribution to Physics Conferences will be allocated in turn to one (or two) NA62 Institute team for review hoping for a lighter load and better sharing between Institutes.

Procedure toward publication

  1. Analysis meeting : agreement of the Collaboration to go for publication
  2. Draft paper is prepared by the (few) author(s):
    • One editor/reviewer (or two if single analysis) is appointed by the Editorial Board then work(s) on the draft together with the author(s)
    • when ready to go for internal review within the Collaboration, the draft is posted on CDS with a dead line for comments
    • access to the draft is restricted to the e-group "cds-readers-na62" (if you are entitled to be an author and do not have membership, contact the EB chair)
    • comments and answers are posted on CDS in the discussion attached to the draft, available to (and only to) e-group members
    • individual comments are welcome, “Institute comments” are also encouraged

  3. When all comments have been processed, the Editorial Board meets for a last common reading (can be an EVO meeting) together with the author(s) and decides which Journal should be considered for publication
  4. Final draft version is submitted to PH for publication approval (CDS procedure) including proper style/layout to benefit from automatic stamping and numbering of CERN PH-preprint. This action closes the discussion attached to the draft and archives it
  5. Depending on PH Decision:
    • OK without PH review
    • PH-review requested
    • No answer within a week = OK,
    wait for OK or review process completion and move the document to CDS public

  6. Submit to Journal ( and arXiv). The editor(s) and author(s) keep the Board informed of the review at the Journal
  7.