This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site you agree to our use of cookies. To find out more, see our Privacy and Cookies policy.
Skip to the content

Share this

Free weekly newswire

Sign up to receive all our latest news direct to your inbox.

Physics on film

100 Second Science Your scientific questions answered simply by specialists in less than 100 seconds.

Watch now

Bright Recruits

At all stages of your career – whether you're an undergraduate, graduate, researcher or industry professional – brightrecruits.com can help find the job for you.

Find your perfect job

Physics connect

Are you looking for a supplier? Physics Connect lists thousands of scientific companies, businesses, non-profit organizations, institutions and experts worldwide.

Start your search today

Blog

All together now…

chair.jpg

With a little help from their friends: some of the DØ collaboration

By Hamish Johnston

Many years ago I wanted to be an experimental particle physicist (didn’t you?).

But then I cast my eyes over a few papers and realized that my name would be buried between D Johnston and A Jonckheere in a two-page list of authors (if I was lucky enough to join the DØ collaboration above).

I can’t say that was the only reason that I switched to condensed matter physics – I found it more interesting, for example – but the idea of being a small cog in a huge machine wasn’t that appealing.

Since then I’ve often wondered how hundreds (indeed, thousands) of particle physicists get together to write one paper.

If you are curious, Tommaso Dorigo has a blow-by-blow account on his blog.

Among other things, it involves committees referred to as “godparents” and arguments over British versus American spellings – although I would have thought the journal would have the last word on the latter.

Dorigo writes, “Now, if you think that the above baroque, surreal, ridiculous procedure is crazy, you might be right”.

However, he also points out that the process is “extremely democratic”, which he says is one of its “striking positive qualities”.

But is democracy the best way of doing science?

Cast your ballot now!

This entry was posted in General. Bookmark the permalink.
View all posts by this author  | View this author's profile

2 comments

  1. He means ‘democratic’ in the sense of fairness of participation, not a bad thing since it is assumed people didn’t get jobs at CDF unless they had some inkling about particle physics, but if people are assumed to know what they are doing pedantic comments should be unnecessary.
    So perhaps ‘fraternity hazing’ would be a better comparison?

  2. As a 10+ year collaborator on BaBar, Tommaso’s description of the internal review process is depressingly accurate. I can’t think of a better process, given the immense size of particle physics experiments, but there does need to be some improvement in efficiency.
    He is quite right about the “democratic” nature of the process — every member of the collaboration has both the right and the duty to read and comment on the papers which go out. After all, every one of our names are on it, and therefore we all share collective responsibility for its contents.

Leave a comment

Your e-mail address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Guidelines

  • Comments should be relevant to the article and not be used to promote your own work, products or services.
  • Please keep your comments brief (we recommend a maximum of 250 words).
  • We reserve the right to remove excessively long, inappropriate or offensive entries.

Show/hide formatting guidelines

Tag Description Example Output
<a> Hyperlink <a href="http://www.google.com">google</a> google
<abbr> Abbreviation <abbr title="World Health Organisation" >WHO</abbr> WHO
<acronym> Acronym <acronym title="as soon as possible">ASAP</acronym> ASAP
<b> Bold <b>Some text</b> Some text
<blockquote> Quoted from another source <blockquote cite="http://iop.org/">IOP</blockquote>
IOP
<cite> Cite <cite>Diagram 1</cite> Diagram 1
<del> Deleted text From this line<del datetime="2012-12-17"> this text was deleted</del> From this line this text was deleted
<em> Emphasized text In this line<em> this text was emphasised</em> In this line this text was emphasised
<i> Italic <i>Some text</i> Some text
<q> Quotation WWF goal is to build a future <q cite="http://www.worldwildlife.org/who/index.html">
where people live in harmony with nature and animals</q>
WWF goal is to build a future
where people live in harmony with nature and animals
<strike> Strike text <strike>Some text</strike> Some text
<strong> Stronger emphasis of text <strong>Some text</strong> Some text
WordPress Appliance - Powered by TurnKey Linux