Re: GSC 00279 00321 paper

["Gamble family" <dgamble1@bigpond.net.au>]

Hi Michael

The last few weeks has been some of the most interesting in the years that I
have been following TASS - particularly your contributions.

 As a total rank amateur, I would be very interested if your paper had a lot
more on how you arrive at your final classification. For instance you
mentioned that you looked at a number of RR Lyrae papers - which ones? what
did their light curves look like? Arne and Dirk seem to think that it may be
an eclipser, if so it maybe possible to model. A quick check with Google
revealed plenty of programs out there (ie
www.physics.sfasu.edu/astro/binstar/moreprograms.html ) - no doubt others on
the list can comment on the usefulness or otherwise.  Also more on the V-I
difference with suitable references would be interesting.

 This may turn it into more of a discussion paper, however as a learning
experience for us all it will be great!


----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Koppelman <lolife@bitstream.net>
To: <aah@nofs.navy.mil>
Cc: <tass@listserv.wwa.com>
Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 11:30 PM
Subject: 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
>
>