Approval Procedures for
CMS Scientific Results and Publications
1. CMS Scientific Documents
1.1 Classification of CMS Scientific Results and Documents
The operational procedures of Physics Coordination must be approved by the Collaboration
Board acting as Institution Board for Physics and be available to all CMS members on the web.
This document takes precedence over any detailed Twiki documents in case of ambiguity or
disagreement.
CMS scientific results are classified in the following categories:
1.1.1 Physics Results that are published in refereed journals as papers signed by the full CMS
author list. Prior to journal publication, these results are approved by the Physics Coordinator
and can be made public in a “Physics Analysis Summary”; they are presented at Conferences
and are reported in Conference Reports. The procedures for approval of “Physics results” and the
resulting scientific documents are steered by Physics Coordination and the Publications
Committee and are described in Section 2.
1.1.2 Technical or Detector Performance Results arising from the running of the CMS
detector. The results are presented at Conferences and are reported in “Detector Performance
Summaries” and Conference Reports. In some cases they are published in refereed journals as
papers signed by the full CMS author list. The approval of these results is steered by the Run
Coordinator (or Physics Coordinator when high level physics objects are involved) together with
the appropriate group Convener(s) and the Publications Committee. Approval is required from
the relevant Subsystem(s) before final approval at a plenary CMS meeting, as described in
Section 3.
1.1.3 Other Technical Results that are related to specific technical aspects of the CMS project.
They are presented at Conferences and documented in Conference Reports. In some cases they
appear as CMS notes and may also be submitted to refereed journals. These publications are
signed by members of the CMS Collaboration. The formal approval of these results and their
related publications is described in Section 3.
1.1.4 Results for Internal Distribution that are related to work in progress in the two categories
described above and which are meant for dissemination of useful information inside the
Collaboration.
1.1.5 Theses that are related to PhD studies carried out in CMS.
The different types of scientific documents are described in Section 4.
Page 1
1.2 Resolution of Conflicts
Should a conflict arise in the classification of a scientific result as “Physics” or “Technical”, the
matter will be settled by the Publications Committee and reported to the Collaboration Board.
Should a conflict arise between the corresponding author and the referee(s) the matter will be
settled by the Publications Committee and reported to the Collaboration Board.
1.3 Results Repositories
The Physics Coordinator and the Chairperson of the Publications Committee are jointly
responsible for ensuring that repositories of approved physics results and published papers are
maintained.
The Run and Commissioning Coordinator and the Chairperson of the Publications Committee
are jointly responsible for ensuring that repositories of approved detector results are maintained.
Repositories of approved Subsystem technical results are the responsibility of the Subsystem
Managers, but must be available to the whole collaboration.
1.4 Exceptions
A result can be shown outside CMS only once it is approved by the Collaboration. Approval can
be granted in several ways, depending on circumstances. Unforeseen exceptions to the rules
given in Sections 2 and 3 below , for a specific analysis, may be granted by the Spokesperson in
agreement with the Chairperson of the Collaboration Board, the Physics Coordinator and the
Chairperson of the Publications Committee. Such exceptions must be reported to the
Collaboration Board in a timely manner. These exceptions are expected to occur very
infrequently.
Occasions on which unapproved materials may exceptionally be shown are the following:
a. The CMS Spokesperson can provide an executive approval to allow a CMS member to
show unapproved materials for special events where it is deemed to be of interest to the
Collaboration (e.g. presentations to the LHCC, SPC, funding agencies etc). In these cases
every effort should be made to obtain prior approval of the material by CMS.
b. Public dissemination of unapproved and uncontroversial physics results may be allowed
at a national or regional meeting by a student on the details of the work he or she has
personally performed.
c. Thesis results when they are not an official CMS result.
Page 2
2. Formal Approval of Physics Results and Publications
2.1 Introduction
The approval process is designed to ensure that CMS physics results are of the highest quality,
that all members of the Collaboration can engage effectively in the reviews of the physics output
of the experiment and that the procedures adopted allow the expeditious approval of physics
results. These procedures are constructed so as not to introduce heavy or unnecessary overheads.
The intention is that all results related to physics measurements should be submitted for
publication in refereed journals. Only in exceptional cases will physics results be approved for
presentation outside the Collaboration without foreseeing the submission of a corresponding
journal publication. Results related to physics object reconstruction can follow a simpler
procedure, as explained in Section 2.2.4. In the following, the standard path for physics
measurements is described.
There are two complementary aspects in the approval procedure: the “physics approval” process,
steered by the Physics Coordinator (Points 2.2.1 to 2.2.4 below), and the “publication approval”
process, steered by the Publications Committee (Points 2.2.5 to 2.2.8 below). The two processes
are linked via the Analysis Review Committee (ARC), which is appointed jointly by the Physics
Coordinator and the Chairperson of the Publications Committee in consultation with the relevant
Physics Group Conveners. The names of the ARC members are accessible to all members of
CMS. The charge to the ARC is to review the analysis and follow it from pre-approval to its
final approval and publication. It is expected that analyses will obtain physics approval prior to
sending the first draft of the publication to the Collaboration (See Point 2.2.5). However, this is
not compulsory, and the two processes (physics and publication approval) can proceed in
parallel.
The steps for the physics approval of an analysis are its presentation and explicit acceptance
(“pre-approval”) in the Physics Group (e.g., Top, SUSY, TAU, etc) and then its presentation and
explicit acceptance (“approval”) in a CMS plenary meeting, which is advertised well in advance
to the full Collaboration. After physics approval, the analysis can be presented outside the
Collaboration.
The steps for the approval of a publication include the posting of the various versions of the
publication to the Collaboration for comments, and the final reading by the Publications
Committee. The analysis presented in the publication must obtain physics approval at some point
prior to final approval by the Collaboration. After the final reading, the Chairperson of the
Publications Committee submits the document to the Spokesperson for approval of the
publication.
An essential basis for all the steps in the process is the presence of up-to-date, detailed and
complete documentation in the form of one or more Analysis Notes (AN). In addition,
documentation via the Web of the various steps (including questions raised and answers) are
used to facilitate the process.
2.2 Approval Path
The present CMS physics organization comprises several Physics Groups where analyses are
regularly discussed. The organigram of the organization can be found at:
https://cms-users.web.cern.ch/cms-users/cms/Projects/Physics/physics_internal.html
Page 3
2.2.1. Presentation in the Physics Group
Physics analyses and their results must be presented and reviewed in the individual Physics
Group meetings on a regular basis. The proponents are expected to provide and maintain an upto-date list of documents describing the details of the analysis.
2.2.2. Approval in the Physics Group (“analysis pre-approval”)
When the analysis proponents and the group conveners determine that the analysis can be
presented for pre-approval, a presentation is scheduled and advertised. The (mandatory)
documentation for the analysis (Analysis Notes) should be made available at least seven days in
advance of the group meeting. The documentation will be posted on a Web page established for
the specific analysis. All the documentation and history of the analysis from this point all the
way to its final publication will be contained in this Web page. The group meeting must be
announced at least seven days in advance and the pre-approvals must be indicated clearly on the
agenda. At the time of the presentation to the group, the analysis may have evolved with respect
to that described in the Analysis Note. Any differences between the results in the presentation
and in the supporting documents should be highlighted and explained. The analysis is preapproved when there is broad consensus within the Group(s) that the analysis has matured to the
point of being ready to present more widely in CMS. It is the responsibility of the Physics Group
at pre-approval to have brought the analysis to a high level of maturity. The scope of the
proposed publication should be defined during the pre-approval process.
2.2.3. Appointment of the Analysis Review Committee
Typically one week before an analysis is presented for pre-approval, an Analysis Review
Committee (ARC) is appointed (and its Chairperson selected) jointly by the Physics Coordinator
and the Chairperson of the Publications Committee. The charge to the ARC is to review the
analysis and follow it from pre-approval to its final approval and publication. The ARC will
consist of at least three people with, typically, one person from the Physics Group in which the
analysis was pre-approved, one member from the Collaboration at large and one member from
the Publications Committee.
At the time of the ARC appointment, the Physics Coordinator also indicates to the ARC the type
of publication that this analysis will lead to. A “kickoff” meeting between the ARC, the authors
of the Analysis Note and the Physics Coordinator takes place within two weeks of the
appointment of the ARC. The purpose of this meeting is to make sure that the authors and ARC
members are familiar with the guidelines, to establish a timeline, to understand the priorities and
to discuss how to deal with any potential conflicts, should they arise. In case of conflict the
Physics Coordinator will attempt to reach consensus and make the final ruling.
2.2.4. CMS Plenary Meeting presentation (“physics approval”)
Approval for external communication of the results of an analysis is obtained at a plenary
physics meeting scheduled by the Physics Coordinator in consultation with the ARC. In cases
where the ARC cannot unanimously endorse the presentation of an analysis for approval, the
Physics Coordinator, following consultation with the ARC members, the group conveners and
the analysis proponents, determines whether to proceed with scheduling the approval of the
analysis. In such cases the reason(s) for the lack of agreement within the ARC must be clearly
stated when the approval is scheduled.
The approval meeting can take place a minimum of two weeks after the pre-approval of the
analysis and is advertised widely in the Collaboration at least two weeks in advance. All relevant
documentation must be frozen by the time of the announcements. As the detailed documentation
may be quite lengthy a “Physics Analysis Summary” (PAS), which describes the main aspects
and issues of the analysis in a transparent way, must be included, and will be posted at a public
web page after approval.. The PAS contains all the plots, numbers and whenever necessary also
text describing the analysis, that are to be communicated outside CMS. It is expected that the
Page 4
PAS text will not be longer than the equivalent of 5-6 printed pages. It is primarily the
responsibility of the Physics Group to ensure that the PAS text is written using a standard of
English which is high and is acceptable to the Publications Committee.
Any minor changes made to the analysis after the final documentation is posted must be
highlighted and explained in detail. Major changes require a return to the Physics Group for a
repeat pre-approval. Upon successful review at the physics approval meeting, as determined by
the Physics Coordinator, , the results can be shown outside CMS, but must be marked “CMS
preliminary” until accepted for publication in a journal. The details of precisely what is approved
(including wording of scientific interpretation in sensitive cases) will be communicated to the
authors by the Physics Coordinator and will be contained in the PAS page on the Web, which is
released once agreed to by the ARC and the Physics Coordinator.
Physics Objects studies that end with a PAS but without subsequent publication can be approved
with a “light” procedure. All steps are followed but with shorter periods for response with
documentation available seven days before the group meeting and available (and frozen) seven
days before the plenary CMS meeting. Scrutiny by the ARC is less stringent.
In general, once a preliminary result is approved, it will not be modified or updated except for
publication
2.2.5. Draft_1
Draft_1 is finalized by the authors in consultation with the ARC and is based on the approved
PAS web page and all supporting documents. Any difference between the results in the draft and
in the supporting documents should be highlighted and explained. The quality of the draft should
be “publishable”, i.e., it should be written in clear English, contain no jargon, and should fulfill
the style recommendations of the Publications Committee. Draft_1 may be prepared at any stage
following the pre-approval of the analysis.
2.2.6. Collaboration-wide review of publications
Once the ARC considers Draft_1 to be of sufficient quality to be publishable, and with the
explicit approval of the Physics Coordinator, the ARC requests the Publications Committee to
initiate a Collaboration-wide review of the publication and the physics results therein. The draft
is posted on the Web page and includes Draft_1, the CMS author list and links to all relevant
internal documents. The Collaboration is notified of the posting and comments on all aspects of
the publication, including the physics result(s) and the presentation, are proactively requested
(including from groups of CMS institutions) with an approval period of at least two weeks for
journal articles. Draft_1 can be posted prior to the “physics approval” of 2.2.4 if the parties of
the approval process agree. However, physics approval must be obtained before Draft_2 is
finalized.
2.2.7. Finalizing and posting of a new Draft
The authors, in consultation with the ARC, finalize Draft_2 (which should, ideally, be very close
to the final version). The ARC Chairperson provides a document with replies from the authors
(and/or commentary by the ARC where relevant) to all comments received. The document is
posted with the new draft. The Publications Committee then notifies the Collaboration that a new
draft exists together with the scheduled date for the final reading.
2.2.8. Final reading by the Publications Committee
The Publications Committee meets in editorial session with the authors and the ARC to examine
possible last-minute comments and to review the publication. The ARC is responsible for
verifying the consistency of the final version. In the case of significant changes Point 2.2.7 must
be repeated. After the final reading only editorial changes may be made. The Publications
Page 5
Committee Chairperson submits the final version of the publication to the Spokesperson for
approval. Interactions with journal editors is through the Chairperson of the Publications
Committee.
2.3 Fast Track
While the nominal periods for analysis approval and for Collaboration-wide review of
publications are defined above, they may exceptionally be shortened, for a given analysis, under
certain circumstances as proposed by the Physics Coordinator and the Publications Chairperson
and approved by the Spokesperson with the agreement of the Collaboration Board Chairperson
and reported to the Collaboration Board, without delay, by e-mail. However, the full review
process, including the opportunity for all members of CMS to participate, should still be carried
out.
Page 6
3. Approval of Performance and Technical Results
Publications of performance results based on data recorded by CMS, as well as technical
descriptions applicable to the whole experiment, will be signed by the full CMS author list. This
does not apply to the publication of specialized investigations of the characteristics of a Subsystem (3.2 below).
Technical publications signed by the full CMS author list will be edited by the Chairperson of
the Publications Committee, or someone to whom this task is delegated. The approval for
publication follows the procedure of Section 2 except that the ARC is replaced by an ad hoc
editorial committee appointed by the Spokesperson in agreement with the Chairperson of the
Publications Committee.
3.1 Results from the Running and Commissioning of CMS
The approval of such material is the responsibility of the Run and Commissioning Coordinator.
When high level physics objects are involved, the responsibility is of the Physics Coordinator.
Approval by the relevant Sub-systems is a requirement. Securing the Sub-system approval is the
responsibility of the relevant group convener(s).
Material approved in this way may only include results on detector performance and should not
overlap with related material approved through the vehicle of a PAS. In the event an overlap or
conflict nevertheless occurs, the Physics Coordinator will resolve the issue.
The procedure for approval is the following.
1) A pre-approval discussion takes place in the corresponding Detector Performance Group or
Physics Object Group (DPG/POG)
2) If deemed necessary a common discussion will take place at a RUN meeting (e.g., more than
one DPG/POG proposing plots at the same time)
3) The formal approval takes place at a CMS General Wednesday meeting.
The results, described in a Detector Performance Summary, DPS, must be posted on the web,
and agreed to by the relevant Subsystems before the DPS is presented to a CMS plenary meeting
for approval. The DPS must be posted at least seven days before the meeting.
3.2 Results from specific Sub-systems
Publications in this category will normally report on a single Sub-system, but may also cover a
few related Sub-systems.
The responsibility for approval of technical results from a Sub-system for presentation outside
the Collaboration lies with the respective Subsystem Manager(s) who may delegate this
responsibility to any suitably qualified member of CMS.
Any new and important information that is included in conference presentations will need prior
approval: this information should be documented in a Detector Note, which documents all the
relevant information.
CMS Conference Reports are reviewed by a Subsystem Editorial Board, Sub-EB, which decides
on their suitability for submission to the conference proceedings.
CMS Notes are reviewed by the Sub-EB which appoints one or more independent referees,
Page 7
members of the CMS Collaboration who are not authors of the note. The name(s) of the
referee(s) are accessible to all members of CMS.
The Sub-EB might select certain CMS Notes for journal publication. Following the agreement
of the authors, these CMS Notes undergo a second review by the Publications Committee to
consider their suitability for publication.
Technical publications which concern more than one Sub-system must be sent to all the
concerned Sub-EBs. The respective Chairpersons will decide if the publication procedure will
be followed by a single Sub-EB or by a broader body, grouping individuals from several SubEBs. This includes Internal Notes and Detector Notes.
Should a conflict arise between authors and the Sub-EB the matter will be settled by the
Publications Committee.
Page 8
4. CMS Scientific Documents
4.1 The following scientific documents will be openly accessible
CMS JOURNAL PUBLICATION
Publication in refereed journals authored by the CMS Collaboration and approved with the path
described in Section 2.
CMS PHYSICS ANALYSIS SUMMARY
Document (PAS) describing in a transparent way the main aspects and issues of an analysis
approved in a preliminary form with the path described in Section 2. It contains all the plots,
numbers and whenever necessary along with text describing the analysis, that are to be
communicated outside CMS. It is expected that the text will have a length equivalent to 5-6
printed pages.
CMS DETECTOR PERFORMANCE SUMMARY
Document collecting public results which describe the performance of detectors or of PhysicsObject reconstruction. The results are typically in the form of plots and the document (DPS) is
typically a collection of slides. An official template and guidelines for the slides are provided.
An internal version of the document (DP), with more information, accessible only to CMS
members, can be provided.
CMS CONFERENCE REPORT
Documentation of CMS results presented by a CMS member at a conference. It is written by the
CMS member who presented the related material.
–
–
For presentation of Physics results: the content is approved via the procedure described
in Section 2 before the submission of the proceedings to the Conference. The report is
authored by the CMS member on behalf of the CMS Collaboration.
For presentation of Technical results: the content is approved via the procedure
described in Section 3 before the submission of the proceedings to the Conference. The
appropriate Institution Board decides the author list.
CMS NOTE
Document providing CMS information of interest to a wide community. The Notes do not
describe physics results related to collision data. The Notes are approved with the path described
in Section 3. They should be written with the quality of a standard journal publication. The
appropriate Institution Board decides the author list. In some cases they can also be published in
refereed journals following the procedure described in Section 3.
CMS THESIS
CMS students are encouraged to make the manuscript of their Thesis available to the
Collaboration, once completed and approved by their University.
4.2 The following scientific documents will only be accessible to members
of CMS (password protected)
CMS ANALYSIS NOTE
For CMS internal use and reference only. They are the primary tool for description and approval
of a physics analysis. Authors must produce a detailed Analysis Note in order to have their
analysis approved by the appropriate physics group(s), and then by a public physics meeting. At
the start of this process a draft Analysis Note is submitted to the Physics Group Convener(s) for
approval of the posting. The draft note can be updated before the pre-approval in the Physics
Page 9
Group.
CMS DETECTOR NOTE
For CMS internal use and reference only. They are a vehicle to gain approval for the
dissemination of new information concerning technical aspects of the Subsystem and are
intended to aid presentation of the most recent information at conferences. They are approved
with the path described in Section 3.
CMS INTERNAL NOTE
For CMS internal use and reference only. They are intended for fast and informal dissemination
of information to members of CMS. They need not be reviewed by a referee. They must however
be sent to the appropriate Sub-EB(s) that will approve the posting.
DETECTOR PERFORMANCE SLIDES
These documents (DP) are in the form of slides and are not public documents. They are similar
to the DPS. Their purpose is to provide approved material on detector performance that may be
presented outside of CMS by a CMS speaker. The approval path is the same as for a DPS.
Page 10