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- no reference to internal notes, private communications, unpublished work, and more generally to any material non-publicly available should be quoted;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
- Analysis meeting : agreement of the Collaboration to go for publication
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Depending on PH Decision:
- OK without PH review
- PH-review requested
- No answer within a week = OK,
- Submit to Journal ( and arXiv). The editor(s) and author(s) keep the Board informed of the review at the Journal