A correspondence with ApJ editor-in-chief Rob Kennicutt, regarding Shapley et al. 2005, ApJ, 626, 698 ************************************************* From ApJ Editor-in-Chief Rob Kennicutt: ************************************************* From: "ApJ Editor" To: aes@astron.Berkeley.EDU Cc: apjrck@vega.as.arizona.edu, apj-ms61997@mss.uchicago.edu Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 2:01:18 PM Subject: question about MS 61997 Hi Alice, I've been reading your recent pair of papers on the z=2 cluster field before selecting a referee/referees, and I stumbled across a question early on. Where would one go to find the positions of the galaxies?? I presume in one of the earlier Steidel or Adelberger papers, but I looked at a couple and found nothing there. NED and SIMBAD have been been on our case to make sure this information is available (for good cause), and I thought I should ask. It might be easier in the end if you just add the information to your Table 1 when you revise the paper, but so long as there is a clear pointer to their source I suppose that is OK. I hope this isn't a dumb question! All the best, Rob ************************************************* From my collaborator, Chuck Steidel: ************************************************* From: "C. Steidel" To: apjrck@vega.as.arizona.edu Cc: "Kurt Adelberger" , "Alice Shapley" Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 8:25:24 AM Subject: Shapley et al 61997 Hi Rob, Alice forwarded your message regarding the RA,Dec of the objects that we included in our analysis of the galaxies in the HS1700 field. We are in a bit of a quandary about this, as we have not yet completed the analysis of the data in the context for which they were originally obtained, a joint analysis of the IGM, for HI, metals, and HeII (this is one of 3 sightlines known where the HeII forest can be studied, and we have been waiting for the FUSE data to become public). With precise galaxy positions, it would be easy for others to use them to do the project we have been working on for several years. Given that the precise positions are not really relevant to the results we present (all of the photometry and the errors are there for others to use as they see fit, and figure 1 shows the general field and the distribution of objects within it), would you be willing to consider allowing us to leave the table as it is, if we promise that our intention is to publish the positions of all of the galaxies in our full survey (in all fields) as soon as we have finished the main analysis vis a vis the IGM? There seems to be plenty of precedent for publishing survey results before the survey data are made fully available. In any case, any advice you have would be gratefully accepted. Thanks for considering this, Chuck ************************************************* From ApJ Editor-in-Chief Rob Kennicutt: ************************************************* From: "ApJ Editor" To: ccs@astro.caltech.edu Cc: apjrck@vega.as.arizona.edu, apj@vega.as.arizona.edu, apj-ms61994@mss.uchicago.edu, apj-ms61997@mss.uchicago.edu, aes@astron.Berkeley.EDU Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 7:44:16 PM Subject: your ApJ MS 61994/61997 Dear Chuck, First of all let me apologize for taking a week to get back to you. I didn't want to deal with this while we were all in the midst of submitting HST proposals, and afterwards it took longer than I expected to recover from a short colloquium trip earlier in the week. This matter is probably best dealt with over the phone but I want to tell you where I stand and give you some time to think about it before we talk. I certainly have bent the rules in the past when it came to providing detailed information on the sources in your papers, for the reasons we have discussed in our correspondence. But proposing to publish a short series of papers on a sample of more than 70 objects, with detailed data, but without coordinates crosses way over the line-- it is not even a close call. I do understand how publishing the results now might risk compromising some aspect of future papers you are writing, but it is difficult for me to conceive that the bulk of your work would be endangered. And besides, if the danger is that great the solution is simple-- just wait and publish everything together. I have encountered similar problems with many of my own projects (including the Ph.D. theses of both of my current grad students), and the solution has been the same-- to hold off and put out most of the data and analysis papers in tandem. While you have articulated the risks of publishing the papers now, you may not have fully appreciated the ill effects of publishing the papers without the positions of the objects. To give just a few examples, granting your request would mean that someone who wants to do radio, UV, X-ray, submillimeter, or HST followup and study the galaxies in ways unrelated to your specific science can't do it-- only the you can. If someone wants to check the robustness of the claims of clustering, study its spatial structure, or even use their own observations to confirm the reality of the objects and the photometry reported in these papers they can't. If a supernova or GRB goes off in the field nobody will know which galaxy in the table to associate with the event. If someone wants to design a lensing experiment or model the dynamics of the cluster they can't. There is also the basic principle that papers contain sufficient information that someone can independently verify the veracity of the results presented. That can't be done with the papers in their current form. If, heaven forbid, you were to be hit by a truck the papers soon would be rendered useless. And so on. With this long recitation I don't mean to imply that this is a black and white issue, and there are not circumstances when a preliminary paper can be published without this full foundation of documentation-- you yourselves have benefited from this discretion on numerous occasions. But this is a pretty clearcut case. Indeed, I am quite certain that you would be subjected to considerable scorn by your colleagues if we actually published the papers without the positions, and I would probably be rung up myself for letting them through. When you consider Kurt's welfare I hope you will consider the damage this might cause relative to the other risks of being scooped that you are considering. In summary, for these papers to go forward to review at ApJ I will need the complete information on the sources including the positions to be included (presumably in Alice's paper). If this creates an untenable situation for you then I recommend that you either hold the papers until you are comfortable releasing the information (alternatively we can review them now (when revised) and place them on hold here). Or you can withdraw the papers and try to publish them elsewhere, but I will be surprised if the reception is any different. I don't know of a set of colleagues I have more regard for professionally or personally, so I don't enjoy writing this letter one bit. But from an editorial point of view this is a very clearcut matter. I will be happy to discuss the issue over the phone later if you wish. Sincerely, Robert Kennicutt ApJ Editor-in-Chief