- Email: [email protected]
Presentation of results of nuclear data measurements
Letters to the editors International Journal of Applied Radiation and Isotopes, 1975, Vol. 26, p. 45. Pergamon Press. Printed in Northern Ireland
Presentation of Results of Nuclear Data Measurements (Received 14 May 1974) PARTICIPANTS of scientific meetings of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) frequently express that, according to their experience, papers presenting results of nuclear data measurements often fall short of certain accepted standards. I n March 1972, the International Working Group on Nuclear Structure and Reaction Data issued a set of recommendations to authors and editors of nuclear physics journals. In May 1974, the participants of the IAEA Meeting in Nuclear Data for Applications expressed the same concern and concluded that the earlier recommendations be publicized again to a wider audience. I would therefore highly appreciate if these recommendations be brought to the attention of the readers of your journal: (I) While brevity is a cardinal virtue, the description of the experiment should be in sufficient detail to enable the reader to judge the reliability of the data presented and of the precision claimed. Naturally a reference to such a description in an earlier publication would be equally acceptable. (2) A clear statement of the errors (systematic or statistical) of the result and how they are derived is essential.
45
(3) I f the results are relative to or depend on some other measured or calculated quantity this should be clearly indicated, its value(s) and its error given and its origin stated. (4) (a) Data should clearly stand out from the text, e.g. in tables. (b) Within tables, the authors' new measurements should be kept separate from values derived from other sources. (c) Experimental data should be distinguished from results derived using theoretical Nuclear Models. (5) I f an extensive tabular presentation of the data does not form part of the published paper but is availahle in a laboratory report or from a data centre this should be explicitly brought out. (6) Previously published material, e.g. abstracts, laboratory reports, conference reports, etc., which are superseded by the paper presented should be explicitly indicated. (7) It would be desirable if the abstract would be supplemented by the use of the keyword system following the practice of"Nuclear Physics". J.J. SC~DT Nuclear Data Section IAEA, Box 590 A-1011 Vienna, Austria G. A. BARTHOLOMEW Working Group on Nuclear Structure and Reaction Data Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. Chalk River Nuclear Laboratories Chalk River, Ontario KOJ 1JO Canada
Presentation of Results of Nuclear Data Measurements (Received 14 May 1974) PARTICIPANTS of scientific meetings of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) frequently express that, according to their experience, papers presenting results of nuclear data measurements often fall short of certain accepted standards. I n March 1972, the International Working Group on Nuclear Structure and Reaction Data issued a set of recommendations to authors and editors of nuclear physics journals. In May 1974, the participants of the IAEA Meeting in Nuclear Data for Applications expressed the same concern and concluded that the earlier recommendations be publicized again to a wider audience. I would therefore highly appreciate if these recommendations be brought to the attention of the readers of your journal: (I) While brevity is a cardinal virtue, the description of the experiment should be in sufficient detail to enable the reader to judge the reliability of the data presented and of the precision claimed. Naturally a reference to such a description in an earlier publication would be equally acceptable. (2) A clear statement of the errors (systematic or statistical) of the result and how they are derived is essential.
45
(3) I f the results are relative to or depend on some other measured or calculated quantity this should be clearly indicated, its value(s) and its error given and its origin stated. (4) (a) Data should clearly stand out from the text, e.g. in tables. (b) Within tables, the authors' new measurements should be kept separate from values derived from other sources. (c) Experimental data should be distinguished from results derived using theoretical Nuclear Models. (5) I f an extensive tabular presentation of the data does not form part of the published paper but is availahle in a laboratory report or from a data centre this should be explicitly brought out. (6) Previously published material, e.g. abstracts, laboratory reports, conference reports, etc., which are superseded by the paper presented should be explicitly indicated. (7) It would be desirable if the abstract would be supplemented by the use of the keyword system following the practice of"Nuclear Physics". J.J. SC~DT Nuclear Data Section IAEA, Box 590 A-1011 Vienna, Austria G. A. BARTHOLOMEW Working Group on Nuclear Structure and Reaction Data Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. Chalk River Nuclear Laboratories Chalk River, Ontario KOJ 1JO Canada