229Re: [vsx-dis] MISAO
- Sep 1, 2006martin_piers_nicholson wrote:
> >That will be a valued contribution to the community.
> > In the case of MISAO, it is a catalog of 1340 objects, something
> > to check on a one-by-one basis. (Note: it includes variables either
> > discovered by Martin, or on some of his images.)
> I would not want colleagues to feel that I had any significant role in
> the vast amount of work done by the MISAO team. I think the total of
> my contribution is two variables found in one batch of images I
> supplied. The overwhelming majority of the new variables are down to
> Ken-ichi Kadota and Nobuo Ohkura.
> I will work through their list "as and when".
I hope that you will also consider performing some followup
observations of your own - it would be good to see your backyard
observatory contributing data again.
One of my real concerns are the papers either by various surveys
or by data miners of those surveys. The refereeing process is supposed
to catch the majority of errors in papers, but when looking at a large
list of objects, this process can fail.
For example, I just reviewed a paper from a GRB group that had found
over a thousand variables in their images. Looking at the data, I would
agree - these are variables. However, they spent half of their paper
describing their automated method of deriving periods and classification,
and when examining the table based on these facts, it was very obvious
to me that the automated process was not working. Would another reviewer
have caught this? We've rejected a couple of lists for VSX because
inspection by the team made it clear that the false-positive rate was
too high; some of these were refereed publications. Surveys represent
a real challenge to proper and timely refereeing.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>