PubComm PROC Monitors Page


The goal of this page is to provide relevant information and help to the PubComm Monitors on the approval procedure of Conference Proceedings Notes (PROC).

Additional information is available on:



Summary of preliminary or published results obtained by the Collaboration as presented by the speaker to a conference and written up to appear in the Proceedings. PROC Notes may be submitted to the ArXiv. They are classified as PHYS-PROC, SOFT-PROC etc.


The speaker on behalf of the ATLAS Collaboration or on behalf of an ATLAS project, as appropriate. In exceptional cases concerning technical PROC notes only, subject to the style of conference and to endorsement by the PubComm Chair, a few authors may be added besides the speaker.


Physics PROC Notes

A proceedings write-up of a general ATLAS physics result will be refereed by a referee appointed by the PubComm chair or their representatives. Approval is required by the Physics Coordinator who can delegate this to the appointed referee. Final endorsement is made by the PubComm Chair or their representatives. Joint proceedings with CMS are refereed and approved jointly. The current agreement is that the collaboration, to which the speaker belongs, is responsible for the refereeing. Prior to submission of such a PROC note, the other collaboration has to endorse the write-up; in the case of ATLAS, approval is required by the Physics Coordinator and endorsement by the PubComm.

Technical PROC Notes

A proceedings writeup is prepared inside a subsystem or project group. Upon approval by the Project Leader, Activity Coordinator or their representatives, PubComm endorses the draft as a PROC note. As an exception, approval may involve a referee or further consultation if that is considered appropriate by the PubComm chair. When in doubt about the classification of a PROC note as physics or technical, the PubComm chair, Physics Coordinator and the Project Leader or Activity Coordinator involved decide the matter.

Required Actions for PROC Notes Approval

The different steps performed during the approval procedure of a Technical or Physics Notes from ATLAS Speakers are presented in the Table below. Several comments are usefull:

  • The procedure for Technical PROC Notes ends at Step 8
  • The procedure for Physics PROC Notes (PHYS,GEN) containing ATLAS results only, ends at Step 12
  • The procedure for Physics PROC Notes (PHYS,GEN) containing both ATLAS + CMS results ends at Step 16

Examples of typical mails exchanged during the process are shown for Technical (TECH), Physics/General (PHYS) and ATLAS+CMS PROC Notes in the 3 last columns respectively.

NOTE 1: For ATLAS+CMS Technical Notes (from ATLAS Speakers) the Physics Coordinator Approval is not required (just like for normal ATLAS Technical Notes)

NOTE 2: For ATLAS+CMS Notes (from CMS Speakers) only a light refereeing procedure is setup.

Step Action Description TECH PHYS ATLAS+CMS
1 Mail from CDS System New ATLAS Note Submitted CDS CDS CDS
2 From PubComm Ask Referee/Project Leader to Review the Note toPL toRef toRef
3 From Referee/Project Leader Acknowledge PubComm Mail fromPL fromRef 3a,3b
4 Iteration... Between Referee and Author iter iter 4a,4b
5 From Referee/Project Leader: Sign Off SignOFF SignOFF SignOFF
6 Iteration... Between PubComm and Author in CDS iter iter
7 From PubComm Approve Technical Note or Submit to Physics Coordinator (Spokesperson) to Sign Off PHYS (GEN) Note Approve toPC/SP toPC/SP
8 Mail from CDS System New ATLAS Technical Note Approved END    
9 Iteration... Between Physics Coordinator (Spokesperson) and Author   in CDS in CDS
10 From Physics Coordinator (Spokesperson) Sign Off PHYS (GEN) Note   SignOFF SignOFF
11 From PubComm Approve PHYS (GEN) Note or Submit Common ATLAS+CMS Note to CMS   Approve UploadtoCMS, fromCMS
12 Mail from CDS System New ATLAS PHYS (GEN) Note Approved END  
13 Iteration... Between PubComm and CMS     Web or Mail
14 From CMS Signs Off Common ATLAS+CMS Note     SignOFF
15 From PubComm Approve ATLAS+CMS Note     Approve
16 Mail from CDS System New ATLAS+CMS Note Approved END

Guidelines for Monitors

The guidelines discussed below are based on experience acquired during the approval procedure of previous PROC Notes and correspond to the current perception of the most efficient way of following the different steps discussed in the PROCEDURES TABLE above. It should be noted that PROC Notes are published also under the responsibility of authors. All comments should be open to ATLAS and posted in the CDS System.

Additional information on ATLAS talks, Conferences and deadlines can be found in ATLAS Talks at International Physics Conferences and Workshops. Look here for National Meetings during 2009.

A- Technical PROC Notes

These notes should be left under the responsibility of the Project Leader, Activity Coordinator (PL) or their representatives. Once Signed OFF by the PL, the PubComm Monitors should verify that ATLAS PUBLIC Results are referred in the note and some FORMAL Rules are respected (i.e., "on behalf of the ATLAS Collaboration" or "on behalf of the ATLAS Pixel Detector Collaboration" as appropriate is included, proper references to ATLAS publications is performed, etc.). As much as possible (check if it does not conflict with the Conference Proceedings rules) the ATLAS Style Guide should be followed.

B- ATLAS Physics PROC Notes

A DETAILED Refereeing is expected from the PubComm Monitors as requested by the Physics Coordinator and the Spokesperson for the PHYS and GEN Notes, respectively. Physics and FORMAL comments should be performed by the PubComm Monitors. Special attention to ATLAS PUBLIC Results must be given in order to avoid propagating wrong Figures, Tables and Numbers to outside ATLAS. Good practice: the ATLAS Style Guide should be followed as much as possible (check the Conference Proceedings rules).


PROC Notes from an ATLAS Speaker: the same procedure as for ATLAS Physics PROC Notes is applied before asking endorsement from CMS. Any comment from CMS is handled by the PubComm and transmitted to the ATLAS author through the PubComm (either via CDS or by mail). Direct contact between ATLAS authors and CMS should be discouraged.

Suggestion: In the first e-mail sent to the Referee its worth saying explicitly that the note is a combined ATLAS + CMS note and ultimately needs to be endorsed by the CMS Collaboration.

PROC Notes from a CMS Speaker: the guidelines currently followed by the CMS Collaboration to review CR notes (as from Gigi Rolandi, 21st May 2009), are the following:

  1. The paper should be signed as 'XY on behalf of the CMS Collaboration' (or ATLAS and CMS Collaborations).
  2. Should look at the text to check for consistency with approved CMS results and correct reference.
  3. Check that the report includes a reference to the CMS detector paper, "The CMS Collaboration, S Chatrchyan et al., JINST 3 S08004 (2008)", and for an ATLAS+CMS report also ATLAS Collaboration, "The ATLAS Collaboration, G Aad et al., JINST 3 S08003 (2008)".
  4. Should point gross mistakes or gross English corrections
  5. It is understood that the paper is published under the responsibility of the author and not of CMS as a whole, so the refereeing process should be lighter than for a standard CMS paper.

Workflow between ATLAS and CMS (for both ATLAS and CMS Speakers): the workflow agreed between the two Collaborations (as from Gigi Rolandi, 19th June 2009) concerning Steps 13 and 14 of the PROCEDURES TABLES, involves 3 different possible actions:

  1. Accept the PROC Note as it is
  2. Approve the PROC Note with comments
  3. Request a new Draft of the PROC Note

D- Keep the information on all notes updated in the ATLAS Physics Coordination Note Tracker

Most Common Errors

During the review process of PROC notes, several recurrent errors where identified. These are Physics and ATLAS Style related.

Physics related errors:

  • Figures and Tables
    • Reference to NON PUBLIC Figures, Tables and Numbers have been found. These some times can be very tricky to detect. As discussed above, the PubComm Monitor should check if Figures, Tables or Numbers can be found in the ATLAS PUBLIC Results page.
    • Frequently Figures do not have the label "ATLAS" or "ATLAS Preliminary" (as appropriate). The PubComm Monitor should foresee that this label appears in Figures.

  • References
    • No mention to References in the main text.
    • Wrong References.
    • References to ATLAS Internal Notes
    • References to Public Notes that should not be referred (as happens with the Public Notes used in the CSC Book which should not be referred; instead the reference to the CSC Book, CERN-OPEN-2008-020,arXiv:0901.0512, must be used).
    • For ATLAS+CMS joint PROC Notes make sure not only ATLAS but also CMS references are properly handled.

ATLAS Style related errors:

Wrong Style Good Style Comment
Sam One,... Sam One, on behalf of the ATLAS Collaboration The speaker on behalf of the ATLAS Collaboration or on behalf of an ATLAS project, as appropriate.
Variables are in italic, subscripts and upper scripts are in roman (if not variables)
ATLAS convention is to use Natural Units
There is no short name to table
Table captions below the Table Table Captions above the Table  
"Fig." at beggining of sentence or Caption Use "Figure" instead At the beginning of a sentence the word "Figure" must be used. Within a sentence, the abbreviation "Fig." can be used (the journals rules must be checked)
Figures X,Y-axis labels units are between "[" "]" not "(" ")"

Major updates:
-- AntonioOnofre - 20 Jul 2009

%RESPONSIBLE% AntonioOnofre
%REVIEW% Never reviewed

Edit | Attach | Watch | Print version | History: r1 | Backlinks | Raw View | WYSIWYG | More topic actions
Topic revision: r1 - 2011-02-09 - AntonioOnofre
    • Cern Search Icon Cern Search
    • TWiki Search Icon TWiki Search
    • Google Search Icon Google Search

    Main All webs login

This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform Powered by PerlCopyright & 2008-2019 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? Send feedback