Open European Journal on Variable Stars

John Greaves wrote 2005-12-30:
The publishing of objects already published in ASAS3 papers as newly found from NSVS data is somewhat concerning.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0508017

Data access points listed there.

Lubos Brat wrote 2005-12-30:
Hmm, I've found the following objects published in http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0508017 as well as in OEJV #0012.

TYC 1174-344-1
TYC 1174-352-1

Other objects in this paper doesn't match to any object in the mentioned ASAS3 paper.

Martin Nicholson wrote 2005-12-31:
I am afraid this is always going to happen until there is one place where all new, reliably reported, variables are listed.

Sinbad is OK for GCVS material but doesn't contain some other major lists of discoveries.

In the case of the variables listed in my article they were "discovered" and published on my web site some years ago, well before the article you list for me.

John Greaves wrote 2005-12-31:
I've noted that although I can access OEJV linkages via a Journal search at ADS, there is no object search.

This is done by simbad linkage. Possibly OEJV needs a simbad keyword as part of its structure, which is usually simply the commonest name.

Otherwise, people will not be able to find articles unless they already know of them. Whereas the emphasis should be that someone doing an object search will find an article on it, irrelevant of who the authors are and what periodical it is in. Thus any OEJV work of relevance index into the system will also appear in the search results.

The republishing of known material, no matter who discovered it first, is redundant. In time OEJV may consist of thousands of articles, giving the potential of having the same material again and again. This even happens in IBVS on occasion: let me emphasize, independent repeat analyses showing the same results and not referring to each other in any way are redundant.

I cannot think of anything very clever to solve this, but I would suggest that each author be required to provide a list of the commonmost identifier of their new variables and the J2000 coordinates thereof as a one line per record standard columnar format, which can then be appended to a master key held at OEJV, which'll be searchable by all, submitters and editors, and/or downloadable as a flat ascii look up table.

The commonmost identifier could be defined as the one that a simbad search returns first for those coordinates, followed in priority by tycho2 ID if nonesuch, then GSC ID if still nonesuch, then USNO B1.0 if still nonesuch.

In this article two objects readily found were easily missed. If one is into the field of new variable discoveries one has to be aware that the cross indexing and literature search work is even more important than the analysis. It isn't all in simbad by a long way, in fact simbad can often be the last place to look.

Martin Nicholson wrote 2006-01-03:
Just to avoid any doubt - the discoveries listed were made and were also first made publically available well before the ASAS paper was published.

Sebastian Otero wrote 2006-01-06:
Probably the definition of "publicly available" doesn't actually apply to anything but your star being published in a journal. There are a lot of variables listed in webpages or e-mail messages that will be ignored by researchers.
On the other hand, it may take time and effort to check all variability sources to see if pur star is already known but this doesn't justify the publication of already published stuff.

Martin Nicholson wrote 2006-01-09:
The ASAS articles contain MANY variables that have been reported previously - is Sebastian suggesting that these should have been removed prior to publication?

"There are a lot of variables listed in webpages or e-mail messages that will be ignored by researchers" - why will they be ignored? Is the implication here that professional surveys can/should/do ignore results in this way but that amateurs should take more care!?

Sebastian Otero wrote 2006-01-10:
ASAS is a catalogue. We are not making a catalogue. We are studying individual stars. There is no point in duplicating things on our side. ASAS records and automatically analyse "everything" south of +28º. They are completely diferent things. it is not about ignoring things. They are including everything. That's how catalogues tend to be.
And about the webpage or e-mail notes, in the real world they are not taken as an official publication so it is the same as if they don't exist. I may not agree with that but that's how it is.

Wolfgang Renz wrote 2006-05-15:
The amplitudes are given in most cases too
large (up to a factor of more than 2).
The causes are:
- to us outliers for the determination
- to not consider the noise inherent to the lc
- to round to increase the amplitude

I would suggest the following more conservative
amplitudes for the given light curves:

Star Paper Conservative
TYC 4141-54-1 11.1-11.6 11.10-11.60
GSC 3428-0212 12.5-13.1 12.60-13.05
GSC 3428-0003 13.3-14.1 13.45-13.75
GSC 3432-0094 13.5-14.5 13.65-14.15
GSC 3433-1003 13.8-15.1 13.95-14.70
GSC 3440-1097 13.5-14.4 13.75-14.25
TYC 1174-352-1 11.8-12.6 11.85-12.55
TYC 1174-344-1 11.0-11.5 11.05-11.45

GSC 3428-0003 might be an EB type star with a
different period (if its not just increased
scatter).

As the NSVS color converts the used Tycho mags
to a R band like system, the mag values can be
considered as CR mags (unfiltered, red sensitive
CCD, using R band mags).

Write your comment:

comments

Write your comment: