Dear Colleague:

This is the current version of the D0 management plan as approved by the D0 Institutional board. It is identical to the June-15-1997 version except for minor technical changes: correct WWW pages, eliminating names of people no longer in positions that are referred to in the document, etc. At this time the Institutional Board and Advisory Council described in this document are part of the D0 management structure.

Mont & Harry

D0 Management Plan

Sept-27, 1997


1. Introduction

back to begin of document next section

This document attempts to delineate the way in which D0 is managed. It may be considered to be a set of guidelines by which the present Spokespersons intend to operate.

The management structure proposed for the future is outlined in the following sections. The current structure which has been in existence for a long time and which is independent of the phase of D0 (taking data, building etc) is the executive committee and the spokesperson(s). In addition to this there are committees and groups whose importance and relevance depend more on current priorities in D0.

In this document we propose no change to the executive committee, but do propose to change its name to Institutional Board which reflects more its character. In addition to this we propose that there be a chairperson and deputy chairperson of the Institutional Board. We also propose to institute a small Advisory Council.

In sections 2, 3 and 4 the election/appointment and role of these bodies of governance is described. Section 5 describes the way in which the Spokespersons expect to manage the D0 Experiment.

Section 6 gives a description of how committees are used and which are standing at this time. Section 7 makes a proposal for how to proceed to implement the plans contained in this document.

In addition to this document there are a series of documents which describe rules and guidelines for "Selection of the D0 Spokesperson ", "Authorship of DZero Publications","Publications", "Speakersbureau tasks",etc. These documents are all parts of how we do business in D0 and are in principle part of this document. For completeness the currently existing documents have been attached as Appendices I through VI.

2. D0 Governance I: Spokespersons

back to begin of document previous section next section

Leadership of the D0 Experiment
Three years (extensible if re-elected)
Election by D0 Collaboration Membership
By No Confidence vote supported by 2/3 majority of the full D0 Institutional Board. In case of a recall both spokespersons are recalled.

For an outline of the proposed management see the section on management.

3. D0 Governance II: D0 Institutional Board

back to begin of document previous section next section

The membership of the Institutional Board is by designation: one person from each individual institution except Fermilab for which there will be two members.

The term of service is determined by the designated institution.

At any given meeting at which the Institutional Board may be called on to vote, a person other than the Institutional Member, may be designated as a replacement.

In general, the D0 Institutional Board is advisory to the Spokespersons with two exceptions:


  1. The D0 Institutional Board can, presumably in exceptional circumstances and following representation to the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson, vote to express no confidence in the Spokespersons. This requires a 2/3 majority and initiates a complete Spokespersons election process.
  2. The D0 Institutional Board is the arbitrator on issues of Collaboration Membership.

It is expected that the Institutional Board with a Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson will take active control of the institutional aspects of D0. These include New Membership of the Collaboration and the process of Selection of Spokespersons (likely by appointment of an Election Committee as in 1993 and 1996).

The Chairperson, along with the Advisory Council (and the Spokespersons), is responsible for the agendas of Institutional Board Meetings.

The Institutional Board Chairperson can request presentations on and discussion of specific issues relating to the collaboration or experiment. The results of such discussions may be recorded and passed to the Spokespersons as formal advice.

The Chairperson is responsible for the production and publication of minutes of the Institutional Board Meetings.


D0 Institutional Board Chairperson

Chairperson of the Institutional Board and Member of the Advisory Council.
One year following one year as Deputy Chairperson.
Initial holder elected by an majority email vote of the membership of the Institutional Board. Subsequent holders elected initially as Deputy.

D0 Institutional Board Deputy Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson of the D0 Institutional Board. Member of the D0 Advisory Council.
one year followed by term as Chairperson.
Elected by majority email vote of the membership of the Institutional Board.
Election of the D0 Institutional Board Deputy Chairperson
The outgoing chair ( for first election see Implementation section) calls for nominations from the IB for Deputy Chair. Every member of the IB can nominate two people. Everybody on the masthead is eligible to be nominated, except for the spokespersons. Every candidate receiving at least 5 nominations will be asked whether they are willing to run and if so, will be on the slate prepared for voting. During the voting process every IB member will have one vote and the new chair is the person who receives most votes. This procedure can be modified by the IB at any time and will have to be adjusted for the first time.

4. D0 Governance III: Advisory Council

back to begin of document previous section next section

Chairperson of the Institutional Board, Deputy Chairperson of the Institutional Board, a junior member and three at-large members. A chair will be elected by the Council from its members.
Advise and council the Spokespersons on any issues which require attention, as determined by the Council, the IB or the Spokespersons.
Provide a conduit for the general D0 Membership to voice opinions and advice that for whatever reason that membership feels that it cannot provide directly.
Provide responsive advice when requested by the Spokespersons in areas of appointments to Upgrade Leadership, Physics Conveners and Coordinator, Speaker's Bureau Membership and Authorship Committee Membership.
Participate in any discussions concerning the broad general directions followed by and to be followed by the Collaboration, when requested by the Spokespersons.
Participate in the discussions with potential new collaborators both institutional and individual.
Assist the Spokespersons in soliciting effort in areas where effort is rarely volunteered.
The Council will meet of order once per month and more frequently if the need arises. The chair is responsible for producing minutes or summaries of these meetings, which will be publicly available in D0.

D0 Advisory Council Members

The Council consists of six members as described above. The junior and at-large members are elected. Every member of the collaboration, as defined by the current masthead, is eligible to serve on the Council as an at-large member. The junior member should be eligible as defined above and time elapsed since receiving her/his PhD should be less than 6 years.

2 years, staggered with two other members. Two initial members will serve for three years. The Chair will serve for one year.
Individual members of the collaboration nominate candidates to serve as Council members. These can be self nominations. The nominations are sent to the Chairperson of the Institutional Board, who verifies that nominated candidates are willing to serve. A slate is prepared containing all nominated candidates that are willing to serve. An election will be held, via email, where every member of the collaboration can cast two votes(not both for the same candidate): one for a member at-large and one for a junior member or two for at large members. The combination depends on who is up for reelection. The two (three the first time) at-large candidates with most votes become members of the Advisory Council. At-large candidates can be junior members of the collaboration. The junior candidate with most votes is elected as junior member. The election is conducted by a three member committee, which consists of the Chairperson of the Institutional Board and two members, who are not candidates for the Advisory Council. The two members are appointed by the Institutional Board. The above procedure describes one round of voting. Based on experience it may be better to have two rounds and this decision is left to the Institutional Board.

5. Management

back to begin of document previous section next section

At any time there are a number of aspects of D0 which require an explicit management structure. These are time dependent structures. When we were taking data, it was important to have a leadership of the operational aspects of the experiment. This is no longer needed and has been de facto retired. The Trigger Certification Board was an important part of our operation, this is now retired. For some time before and after the start of data taking it was important to emphasize the groups working on Object ID (jets, electrons, muons). Until 1990 there was no D0 Upgrade and there were neither Upgrade Project nor Upgrade Software Groups. These currently constitute very important aspects of the D0 Experiment.

6. Committees

back to begin of document previous section next section

An important aspect of the management of a scientific collaboration, indeed of the scientific process in general, is the ability and need to subject ourselves to critical peer review. The use of review committees both ad hoc and standing is highly desirable. Such review committees or boards will be formed when needed and go out existence when their task is completed. Examples of these are editorial boards or subject/detector specific review committees. However there are some other committees which are permanent, but whose membership varies with time. At present these committees are:

i) Authorship Committee

The Authorship Committee provides direct advice on the inclusion of individuals as Authors of D0 Papers. The Guidelines are fairly explicit and are laid out in Appendix III. In principle the Authorship Committee is advisory to the Spokespersons. In practice the Spokespersons have never rejected a clear recommendation from the Authorship Committee. In some cases when the Authorship Committee has not reached a clear conclusion, the Spokespersons have adjudicated.

ii) Speakers Bureau (SB)

The Speakers' Bureau:

  1. secures allocation of talks to D0 by interaction with Conference Organizers and the W&C Seminar series Organizer at Fermilab.
  2. Guided by requests and recommendations, particularly from the Physics Conveners and from various technical leaders, the SB allocates talks to appropriate members of D0.
  3. The SB does not adjudicate seminars or colloquia at institutions other than Fermilab.

7. Implementation

back to begin of document previous section next section

We propose:

Appendix I: Guidelines for Authorship Committee

back to begin of document previous section next section

Rules on Authorship of DZero Publications

General Guidance

The general criterion for determining authorship on any publication is whether that collaborator is a "serious" participant in DZero. It is expected that all such members of the Collaboration will be authors of every physics (as opposed to a technical) publication. Withdrawing individual names because of a lack of close involvement in some particular aspect of the analysis will tend to undercut the impact of any publication and is therefore to be strongly discouraged.

Normally, authorship of physics papers will be restricted to physicists, postdocs, and graduate students who satisfy the criteria listed below. These conditions can be taken to define what is meant by being a serious member of DZero, and can thereby serve as guidelines for authorship.

Specific Criteria for Authorship of Physics Papers

To become eligible for authorship on a physics publication, a scientist is expected to contribute "significantly" to DZero for one year prior to the submission of that publication. Clearly, senior physicists, who have teaching or other obligations, cannot be expected to devote the same number of hours to DZero that graduate students or postdoc can. Nevertheless, senior scientists, as well as their junior colleagues, are expected to contribute their full research time for one calendar year, half time for two years, etc., in order to qualify for active authorship status. In this context, significant contributions to DZero can be defined as comprising at least 12 hours per week devoted to the type of tasks described in items (a)-(e) below. Only through explicit approval by the Spokesperson(s) will authorship be granted to any individual who contributes mainly in the analysis of data or in the kind of tasks that are described in items (f) or (g).

To maintain good standing after the initial year (that is, to remain an active author), all scientists on the experiment are expected to continue to contribute the major fraction of their research time to DZero (but, again, at least 12 hours per week) in any of the areas described in the items (a)-(g). We wish to emphasize that such contributions, whether for establishing or for maintaining eligibility, need not be made only at Fermilab, but can also be satisfied at the home institution.

Service Tasks

  1. Working on the design, construction or debugging of detector components for DZero, or for any DZero upgrade or test facility.
  2. Working on the design, implementation or debugging of online or offline software (utility packages, Monte Carlo simulation of detectors, etc.) for use in detector components of DZero, or at any DZero upgrade or test facility, or in the processing or analysis of any DZero data.
  3. Working on the processing of Monte Carlo events or of data obtained at DAB or at any DZero test facility.
  4. Running shifts either at DAB or at any DZero test facility. We imagine that about four shifts per month would prevent memory loss and the need for extensive retraining.
  5. Working on management of personnel issues for DZero, administration of DZero-associated contracts and grants, serving on sundry DZero committees, serving as a physics convener, as a convener or coordinator of technical topics (e.g., electron ID) or as a coordinator of a particular detector or software subsystem ( e.g. Level 1, 2 ,3 upgrade managers).

Physics Tasks

  1. Writing or reviewing DZero papers, reviewing DZero presentations for any conferences, or advising graduate students.
  2. Participating in DZero meetings, workshops and discussions, analyzing the results of physics simulations, or performing physics analysis for a paper or a PhD thesis.

Formation of the Committee on Authorship

The Spokesperson(s) will establish a Committee on Authorship to help maintain the Authorship List, with the proviso that any controversial issues shall be channeled to, and be adjudicated by, the Spokesperson(s). Choosing from a broad spectrum of the Collaboration, the Spokesperson(s) shall nominate the Chair and six members of DZero to serve on the Committee on Authorship. The Executive Committee of Dzero shall be apprised of the composition of the Committee on Authorship at the annual midyear meeting of the Collaboration.

Operating Procedures

  1. The Contact Person at each participating institution shall be requested by the Chair of the Committee on Authorship in December and June of each year to prepare a list of authors from that institution. The Contact Person shall then update his institutional list, applying the criteria defined above, and transmit the corrected version to the Spokesperson(s).
  2. The Chair of the Committee on Authorship shall keep a master list of collaborators who are eligible for authorship, and the Committee, with input from the Spokesperson(s), shall review that list each January and July, and at other times, when requested by the Spokesperson(s).
  3. All clarifications and decisions on the exceptions to the normal criteria and procedures will be made by the Spokesperson(s) with advice from the Committee on Authorship.
  4. The Rules for Authorship shall be reviewed once per year by the Committee on Authorship, and changes, if any, shall be recommended, upon consultation with the Spokesperson(s), to the Institutional Board.
  5. These Rules shall be adopted, and amended, by two-thirds vote of the Institutional Board.

Technical Publications

Technical publications shall not be constrained by the rules discussed above. Specific papers may be initiated by some subset of the Collaboration, or through the instigation of the Spokesperson(s) or Institutional Board. Such papers shall be prepared under the direction of a Coordinator, appointed by a Spokesperson. The Coordinator will inform the Committee on Authorship and the Spokesperson(s) of the author list and title of that paper. Contributions to the contents of the work will serve as the primary grounds for determining authorship. Normally, authorship will not be restricted to physicists. Also, when funds for the reported research are provided through DZero, or if the presented results are based on work performed by members of DZero, the author list will be followed by the phrase "for the D0 Collaboration".

Ordering of author lists

Names of authors shall normally be listed in alphabetical order (according to family name), with institutional affiliations indicated by suitable superscripts. Papers submitted to conference proceedings will normally give only the speaker's name, and affiliation, followed by the standard phrase "for the D0 Collaboration" (with no need to specify the current institutional make-up). For technical papers, with relatively short author lists, an alphabetical listing (by family name), and grouping by institution (again, in alphabetical order) is allowed, but the standard format is preferred.

Narrow or Short-Term Contributions

When any individual (either an experimenter or a theorist, who is not on the Authorship List for DZero) makes a significant contribution to any specific analysis, that person can be considered for authorship on a publication that is based on that work, and on any directly related publications that follow. Specific decisions will be left to the Spokesperson(s) and the Committee on Authorship. Short-term visitors, who contribute to the general operation and technical well-being of the experiment will be entitled to authorship of one paper for every two months spent full-time on DZero.


A lesser contribution by a physicist outside of the collaboration, e.g., by a theorist, to a journal publication, will, with approval of the Spokesperson(s), normally be recognized by an acknowledgment. Otherwise, the practice of naming specific individuals is to be discouraged. Assistance from any group outside of the authors' list may also be acknowledged. For example, we expect that the contributions of the staff at Fermilab is likely to be acknowledged routinely. In addition, every DZero publication should acknowledge the support of any and all appropriate funding agencies.

"Retirement and Severance Benefits"

Normally, each active experimenter who leaves DZero will be entitled to remain on the author list six months for each year of active service; however, independent of the years of service, all benefits will normally terminate three years after departure from the experiment. Thus, for example, a person who has worked four years on DZero, can leave the experiment for two years, and then resume active status without getting out of step. For scientists who left DZero prior to the start of the publication of physics analyses in the professional journals, the date for the initiation of their "benefits" will be January 1, 1994.

A Word on Service

For each of its active authors, an institution must provide, on average, at least 15 hours of service per week (per person) in categories (a)-(e) listed above. It is the responsibility of the institutional Contact Person to assure that this happens, and that the information documenting this is transmitted biannually (January and July of each year) to the Spokesperson(s).

A Final Word on the DZero Masthead

We also wish to clarify the distinction between the DZero Authorship List, which is the subject of these Rules, and the DZero Masthead, which is outside of our purview. The Masthead, contains the list of all active as well as quiescent members of the Collaboration, with quiescent meaning that they are expected shortly to enter active status. Thus an individual who has just left the experiment can be on the Authorship List, but not be a bona fide active member of DZero, and therefore not be on the Masthead, and, vice versa, a person can be active (or quiescent), and on the Masthead, but not qualify as yet for authorship.

Submitted on Behalf of the Committee on Authorship on May 4, 1994

B. S. Acharya, T. Diehl, S. Eno, G. Eppley, R. Madaras, R. Partridge, J. Warchol, and T. Ferbel (Chair).

(As amended and adopted unanimously by the Executive Committee on June 2, 1994)

Appendix II: Specific Criteria for becoming a D0 author

back to begin of document previous section next section

There have recently been questions about the proper interpretation of the D0 Authorship Rules as to the exact requirements for new D0 authors. The following interpretation has been agreed to by the D0 Spokesmen and the D0 Authorship Committee.

Ron Madaras, for the D0 Authorship Committee

Specific Criteria for Someone to be Added to the D0 Author List

In order to become a new D0 Author, one must satisfy the following three criteria. These criteria are based on the D0 Authorship Rules (D0NEWS, June 7, 1994). The three criteria are:

  1. A person must spend his or her full research time on D0 for 1 calendar year, or the equivalent (100% of research time on D0 for 1 year, 50% of research time on D0 for 2 years, etc).
  2. Of the time a person spends on D0, at least 50% must be spent on D0 service tasks (a)-(e) for the time period indicated in criteria #1. These service tasks are described in the Authorship Rules.
  3. The minimum amount of time spent on service tasks (a)-(e) must be at least 12 hours/week for the time period indicated in criteria #1. This is an absolute minimum, and is not prorated according to the percentage of research time spent on D0.

It is recognized that there will be many variations in circumstances, and that some interpretations of individual cases will be necessary. Any person not fulfilling the above criteria can appeal to the Authorship Committee for an exemption if he or she thinks there are mitigating circumstances.

Appendix III: Guidelines for Publications, Full

back to begin of document previous section next section

Guidelines for Editorial Boards and Publication Submissions

(P. Grannis/H. Montgomery; revised: June 21, 1996)

EB's are created by the spokespersons following a request by the physics conveners. Suitable documentation should exist on the analysis at the time of setting up the EB.

The EB is charged with approving an analysis. Approval means that the results can be shown in talks at seminars and conferences, and can be shared with physicists outside the collaboration. The EB can define subsets of results related to an analysis for approval, with other aspects reserved for more work and later approval. For each such approval, there must be a Physics Note available which gives the details of the analysis in sufficient detail that a member of the collaboration can be expected to understand the results. The EB is also charged with approval of draft publications before circulation to the collaboration for review, after the collaboration review, and after comments are received from the journal referees and have been incorporated by the author(s).

The steps, in more detail are these:

1. Formation of Boards
On request of physics conveners, or author with agreement of convener, the spokespersons establish an EB. Adequate documentation for the analysis must exist for the evaluation at the time of EB initiation; the responsibility for establishing this adequacy rests with the conveners.
The EB shall consist of the author(s) of the analysis, a chairperson, at least one person from the physics group involved, and at least one person from outside the physics group. The total membership of the EB should be at least five physicists. Typically, only those who are qualified to be authors on papers at the time the EB is set up will be used. Graduate students and physics group conveners are asked to serve on EB's only under exceptional circumstances. It is essential that close contact be kept between the EB and the relevant physics conveners.
2. EB Documentation
When a board is established, and the individuals have agreed to serve, an entry is created in the list of EB's on the D0 restricted EB web page and two dummy subsidiary pages are created. The first 'EB_xxx.HTML' is intended to list the several analyses under consideration by this EB with indications of the status. The lowest level pages, 'EB_xxx_01.HTML', 'EB_xxx_02.HTML' etc. pointed to from 'EB_xxx.HTML' are intended to describe a specific analysis. This page should contain the pointers to documents, minutes of meetings, comments from the board and collaboration, successive drafts of papers, and useful supplementary materials. A brief summary of the main aims of the analysis should be inserted on these pages.
The maintenance of these subsidiary pages are the responsibility of the EB (chair, author or other designated person). Any person in D0 should be able to get all the necessary information to understand the analysis from these sources.
3. EB Approvals
The EB serves the collaboration, through the spokespersons. There are variations in the character of approval given to analyses by the physics groups, and we do not legislate a specific pattern. Some physics groups wish to consider and approve an analysis prior to setting up the EB process. Some may approve the analysis as part of the general EB and collaboration review. In some cases, the physics groups set up their own editorial committees to help prepare a paper.
However, we do require that the relevant physics convener approval be given to any result recommended by an EB, as condition for its approval for external showing or submission to a journal. This includes results for showing in talks, papers for journal submission, and resubmitted papers after referee comments. It is incumbent on conveners and EB's to be sure that the connection be close enough. It is expected that physics convener input on the paper be incorporated during the review process, not after.
Approval by EB and physics conveners should strive for unanimity, but this is not required. In the case of non-unanimous recommendation, the spokespersons are empowered to make the final decision on approval. The collaboration should be notified of the lack of unanimous approval and the relevent arguments for and against.
The chair of the EB should establish a central e-mail distribution list to be used by all for discussion of the analyses. This distribution (for example maintained through FNAL mail server) should include all EB members, relevant physics conveners, spokespersons, and any individuals closely connected with the analysis who request inclusion.
4. For analyses to be shown in talks:
An approved physics note document should exist and should be available from the EB web page. Exceptions on the documentation (e.g. a handwritten note in the Top Drawer or equivalent require spokesperson approval.
EB approval is required for updates to previous analyses -- addition of more data, modification of results or errors, or addition of supplementary analyses. Documentation on the EB web page should be updated with the revised analyses.
The style of the physics note should be such as to inform a D0 collaborator of the physics motivation, data selection, analysis techniques, and results. It need not conform to PRL style conventions and can use standard D0 nomenclature not generally used outside the collaboration. It may use references to other D0 notes or publications to include supporting material. A physics note should be included in the standard library of D0 Notes, with a note number attached, and referenced through the WWW page devoted to the analysis.
The results should be presented in some general talk to the collaboration. This can be in a plenary session of a collaboration meeting, a D0PAM seminar, or in a session of the physics group where the notification of the talk has been made in D0News. This presentation should be on the analysis in a close to final form, but need not be given on the absolutely final results.
The EB is not required to conduct rehearsals of individual talks which incorporate the analysis. In many cases talks cover more than one topic and their rehearsal is the responsibility of the appropriate physics group convener.
Submissions for conference proceedings should be distributed as Fermilab preprints and incorporated as D0Notes and installed on the EB WWW page.
5. Procedures for submitting publications:
Draft versions of the paper should be made available to the relevent physics group at each stage of modification.
Prior to submission of the paper to the collaboration, but in a stage close to final, the draft is sent to the style editor committee (currently Sue Blessing) for review of conventions, grammar, etc. This review is expected to take no more than three days and is not intended to address physics issues.
The lead author obtains the current author list from the Author Committee (Ron Madaras at present) and incorporates the standard acknowledgement paragraph.
On approval of a draft paper by the EB/conveners, the chair notifies the spokespersons and the spokes post a note informing the full collaboration that comments are invited. Ten working days is the standard time for collection of comments to author and EB chair. At this time, the EB WWW page documentation (references to D0 notes and a short summary of the main physics issues of this work) should be in place.
All comments shall be made available on the EB web page. Responses by the authors shall be made to each comment, including the action taken on the comment. Responses should be posted on the EB web page, typically interspersed with the comments themselves with some suitable delimiter. Comments will be attributed to their sender unless anonymity is requested. Brief outline of the substantive modifications to the paper should be incorporated in the EB WWW page.
After incorporation of responses to comments, the EB/conveners must approve the revised manuscript. Approval is forwarded to the spokespersons. Spokes check that the comments and responses are in place and that adequate attention paid to comments. If in the view of the spokespersons sufficient change has occurred, an abbreviated solicitation of collaboration comment will be made, and if necessary a second style check will be made. Go ahead for submission of the paper is given by spokespersons.
6. Responsibilities of author in submitting the paper and preprints.
  1. Submission to journal (electronic in the case of PRL and PRD). AIP journals want ReVTeX with no embedded macros or includes (authors included in the main text). Figure captions and tables and captions should be in the file. e-mail the text file to PRL ( with 'submit PRL Abachi' as the subject header. Then submit the figures with 'submit PRL Abachi Figure 1' as subject. Automatic acknowledgement should follow.
  2. Submit the preprint format manuscript to Fermilab Publications for a number and general Fermilab preprint distribution. Preprint is sent, on paper and electronically, to Cyndi Rathbun at Fermilab Publications for release as a Fermilab preprint. Fermilab conducts its own internal review for 'material which may be embarassing to Lab or DOE'. This usually does not take too long, but if the paper is particularly timely, there is a mechanism in place to make this occur within a few hours. The spokespersons trigger this rapid review.
  3. Be sure that the submitted (or subsequently revised) paper is referenced on the appropriate EB web page.
  4. Give Becky Knol a paper copy for inclusion in D0 Notes.
  5. Give the location of the submitted paper postscript to the spokespersons for inclusion in the DZero publications WWW pages.
  6. Submit the manuscript to the Los Alamos hep-ex preprint server.
7. On receipt of comments and decision by the journal:
  1. Forward reviewer comments to EB chair, physics conveners, spokespersons.
  2. Prepare response to the referee comments in the form of modifications to the manuscript. These responses should be considered and approved by the EB/conveners/spokespersons.
  3. Prepare summary letter to the editor, outlining the disposition of all comments made by referees, and summarizing the changes made.
  4. Obtain advice from spokespersons on whether a new collaboration reading is needed. On approval by spokes, resubmit the letter and revised manuscript.
  5. Update the EB WWW page and notify spokes to get the publications WWW page updated.
  6. Have a beer, construct the list of ten best reasons that this is the hottest physics result since Archimedes shouted 'Eureka', and await the call from David Letterman to come autograph a copy of your paper.

Appendix IV: Guidelines for Publications, Abbreviated

back to begin of document previous section next section

Short Instructions for Editorial Boards and Publication Submissions

(P. Grannis/H. Montgomery; Oct. 29, 1996)

(See EB Guidelines and Paper submission for more details)

The EB Process:

  1. Request to spokespersons from convener, or author with agreement of convener, to set up an EB.
  2. An EB WWW page is created; all documentation regarding the analysis should be put on this page.
  3. EB approval is ratified by physics group conveners and spokespersons. Results are now available for collaboration talks.
  4. Approved physics note is a necessary condition for EB approval. Such documents should be posted on the appropriate EB Web page. Content of talks based on this analysis must be restricted to the approved results as outlined in the physics note.

For Publications:

  1. Draft versions of papers should be available to appropriate physics group at each step.
  2. Prior to submission for collaboration review, but in nearly final form, paper reviewed by D0 Style Council (S. Blessing, chair)
  3. Obtain current author list from list maintained by Author committee (R. Madaras, chair).
  4. With approval of EB chair and physics conveners, chair requests posting of paper for collaboration comment by spokesperson. A ten day posting is typical. Proper EB WWW page documentation is required at this point.
  5. Comments and the response by authors should be made available on the EB WWW page.
  6. EB reviews the comment/responses and revised manuscript. EB approval and physics convener ratification leads to request to spokespersons for either second review, or submission to journal. Style review if major rewrite; spokespersons OK submission.
  7. Author submits paper (typically electronically) to journal and receives acknowledgement.
  8. Preprint version of paper submitted to Fermilab Publications for review and preprint circulation. Notify spokespersons of Fermi-PUB number.
  9. Author installs preprint on HEP-EX preprint server and on D0 EB web page.
  10. Author gives preprint to Becky Knol for D0-PUB file.
  11. Information on Fermi PUB, D0-PUB numbers to spokesperson for installation of paper and reference on D0 WWW.
  12. On receipt of journal referee comments, forward to EB chair, physics convener, spokespersons.
  13. Prepare draft response to referees for EB, convener, spokesperson approval.
  14. Prepare response to journal, and cover letter explaining actions to editor.
  15. Spokesperson decision on whether new collaboration and style review are required.
  16. With EB and convener approval, spokesperson approves the resubmission of responses, new manuscript.
  17. Submit responses to journal.
  18. Update D0 Web copy of the paper and supply postscript to spokespersons for posting on WWW PUB page.
  19. On acceptance of article, notify spokepersons and post announcement in D0 News.
  20. On publication, notify spokespersons of full article reference for D0 PUBs WWW page.

Appendix V: D0 Speakers Bureau

back to begin of document previous section next section

September 24, 1996

The D0 Speakers Bureau tries to look after the collaboration's needs in matching people to talks. It has meetings approximately once a month to nominate speakers for conference and workshop talks. Seminars and colloquium are not arranged by the Speakers Bureau, unless a request for a speaker is made to it. Please inform the D0 secretary (currently Elaine Moore) about such talks for the record.

For major conferences where abstracts and/or conference proceedings are required, a member of D0 will be appointed by the spokesperson to see that the abstracts and/or papers are written in a timely manner and coordinate the submission of the D0 abstracts to the conference.

There is a folder in D0NEWS -- "UPCOMING CONFERENCES AND SPEAKER BUREAU" which contain announcements, abstracts, etc. on conferences. It can be found on WWW: click here to go there

Volunteers who want to give a conference talk on some aspect of the experiment should let the SPEAKER'S BUREAU (contact the current chairperson) know as well as the convenors of the appropriate Physics Group, if a physics area is specified. Please mention any special reasons why you should give the talk.

Speakers will be selected based on the following criteria:

  1. Depth of contribution to topic.
  2. Need for talk for promotion/job hunting
  3. Desire to talk/ previous talk history
  4. Institutional distribution
  5. Deservedness (history of hard work)

............... The above criteria area not in order of importance.

A file will be kept of Speakers/conf/talk titles/dates, which will be available to the collaboration.

Conferences and D0 speakers lists can be found on D0 WWW and in the project disk area for conferences on FNALD0:: To find these lists do:

FUTURE_CONFERENCES.LIST -list of future conferences, assigned speakers, and talks that need speakers.
RECENT_SPEAKERS.LIST -list of recent D0 talks in chronological order.
SPEAKERS_BY_INSTITUTION.LIST -list of all D0 talks since 1989 by institution and author.

The "Keeper of the Plots" keeps plots up to date and they are available on the CONFERENCE disk in subdirectories under CONFERENCE$HROOT:[PLOTS]. He/she is responsible for getting approved plots from conference speakers, with comments if necessary, which can then be used for D0 seminars and general talks.

Appendix VI: Policy on D0 Talks at Meetings

back to begin of document previous section

There are 5 classes of talks by D0 speakers:

  1. HEP seminars and Colloquium. The only one that the D0 Speakers Bureau has to advise and approve is the Fermilab Wine and Cheese, which is special because that is where new D0 results are presented to the general physics community. (We have decided not to single out CERN seminars.) Only results approved by the Physics groups should be shown in these talks. The D0 secretary ( currently Elaine Moore) should be notified about these talks, so they can be added to her list.
  2. Talks at Regional DPF meetings and Regional Workshops. These talks are usually arranged and attended by people in the geographical region. The D0 Speakers Bureau should be notified about these talks as soon as possible and reserves the right to refuse approval of particular topics or speakers. The appropriate Physics Group should also be notified about the talk, so they can guide the preparation if necessary. These talks will be listed in the overall tallies.
  3. Talks at APS meetings. These talks are usually initiated by the prospective speaker based on his/her own work. Contributed abstracts should be approved by the Physics convenors or Instrumentation heads, and the speaker and subject approved by the Speakers Bureau BEFORE being submitted. The D0 spokespersons usually appoint someone to collect the abstracts, check them for correct format, and submit them to APS. APS contributed talks will be listed in the overall tallies, but will not count when future talks are assigned.
  4. Talks at Conferences and Workshops.
  5. General Review/Future Talks. These talks include a large fraction of results from non-Tevatron experiments, or future experiments, or future physics and general discussion as well as some D0/CDF physics results and/or D0 instrumentation results. The D0 Speakers Bureau would like to be informed about such talks before they occur. General review talks at major international confereces such as DPF and ICHEP (Rochester series) are chosen by the conference organizers and do not come under the purview of the Speakers Bureau.

Last updated on Sept 27, 1997 by H.Weerts