POLICIES - The following policies and practices have been adopted to further the above listed goals.

THE ROLE OF MANAGEMENT IN THESE PROCESSES

1. The role of the Spokesperson:
   1. The spokesperson or his delegate(s) will administer these policies. Within seven days after taking office, the spokesperson will inform the STAR Council of those persons (spokesperson's delegates) who are assigned to administer the specific spokesperson responsibilities in these Policies. Any changes in these personnel assignments regarding the administration of these policies will similiarly be communiated to the Council within seven days after the changes are to take effect. (In what follows, the designation "SD" will be understood to mean either the spokesperson or the spokesperson's delegate.)
   2. In those instances when individual collaboration members do not abide by these Policies, the spokesperson should initiate such intervention as deemed appropriate in accord with the procedures detailed in the STAR bylaws: Individual membership: Consequences. The spokesperson or his designate shall report violations of these policies to the STAR Council in regular and timely reports and describe the interventions taken.
   3. In all presentations and publications of STAR Results, the spokesperson will have the authority to intervene and disapprove an abstract, a presentation, or a publication in whole or in part, if it is deemed inappropriate or if it will not represent the collaboration well. It is understood that such interventions will be very rare and should be taken only in unusual circumstances. In those cases where the spokesperson exercises this authority, the spokesperson shall report the action to the STAR council along with detailed justification for taking this action within 30 days so that the Council may review it.

   RESPECT FOR COMPETING INTERPRETATIONS

2. Competing points of view: It should be the practice of the STAR collaboration to allow for alternative physics interpretations of the same data and for these competing points of view to be disseminated in STAR presentations and publications. Presenters should respect the alternative interpretations of other analyses in their presentations. The prior presentation or publication of one interpretation should not automatically preclude the presentation or publication of a competing interpretation.

   ANALYSIS OF DATA

3. Availability of STAR Data: Data from all parts of the STAR detector shall be available to all members of the STAR Collaboration for analysis. Furthermore, it is the responsibility of all collaborators to see that the necessary correction algorithms and correction parameters be updated and made available to the entire Collaboration in a timely manner. Any member of the Collaboration is free to analyze any part of the data.

4. Data Analyses in the Context of the Physics Working Group (PWG): It is anticipated that all STAR data will be analyzed in collaboration with the STAR Physics Working Groups (PWG), with the possible exception of technical papers. As described below, the PWGs will review and approve (or disapprove) abstracts to be submitted for presentation of STAR Results, review and approve (or disapprove) presentations of STAR Results, review and approve (or disapprove) conference proceedings, and review and approve submitted manuscripts as ready for GPC review prior to publication. In the case of presentations, the PWGs determine which STAR Results are ready to be designated as Preliminary for Approved STAR Presentations . The Preliminary STAR Results designation is given to indicate that the analysis procedure and the results have been vetted by the PWGs and have been approved for presentation outside of STAR. The PWG conveners work closely with the SD and the conveners of other PWGs as described below.
   PWGs shall be designated and PWG conveners appointed by the spokesperson for each major physics analysis topic in STAR. In some instances a physics analysis may have implications for more than one PWG as determined by the spokesperson. In such cases, one of the PWGs shall be the principal PWG for that analysis, as designated by the spokesperson, with the other affected PWGs being secondary. The PWG convenerships are expected to rotate approximately every two years at the discretion of the spokesperson.
   

5. The Common Effort: Given the overriding principle of open communication within the collaboration, collaborators should, upon request of a colleague, provide relevant code and input assumptions that would permit results to be checked and confirmed. Computer code will be kept in a common STAR software archive, and code and Data Summary Tapes (DST's) will be accessible to all collaborators.

   PRESENTATION OF STAR RESULTS:

6. Members of the Collaboration should exercise caution and good judgment when discussing STAR Results with individuals outside the Collaboration before the results have become Public STAR Results. When individuals outside the Collaboration are consulted for advice on the analysis or interpretation of data, those individuals should be asked to respect the confidentiality of the STAR results discussed.

   The presentation of STAR Results is divided into two categories:

7. Approved STAR Presentations: Members of the Collaboration who have been selected to represent the STAR collaboration by making a presentation of STAR Results must follow these steps and abide by these guidelines. This category includes all invited and submitted presentations to be given by members of the STAR collaboration that are to be made at venues (conferences, scholarly meetings, and workshops), and which presentations will include STAR Results that are neither published nor public STAR Results. Review or summary physics presentatioins will not include STAR Results that are neither published nor public STAR Results. For presentations that are more technical in nature, the SD may assign the review role normally taken by the PWG(s) to a more specialized technical group within STAR (e.g., a detector subsystem group, a computing group, or an adhoc group for special cases) who will report their review to the SD. With this modification, the review of such presentations is to follow the steps below including relevant time constraints.
   1. The presentation shall have the name of the presenter and the words "For the STAR Collaboration". In rare cases, posters may have more than one presenter name.
   2. Preliminary STAR Results must be labeled "preliminary".
   3. If an abstract is required:
      1. The draft abstract must be submitted to the relevant PWG(s) at least two weeks prior to the submission due date. Presenters are strongly encouraged to submit the abstract substantially earlier than two weeks before the submission due date if substantive physics issues are likely to arise in the approval process. Abstracts that are submitted to the PWG after two weeks prior to the submission due date may be rejected by the PWG.
      2. Comments on the abstract should be sent to the presenter and the PWG list(s).
      3. Each convener of the PWG shall post to the respective PWG and to the SD an approval or disapproval of the abstract within five days of the abstract posting. A convener who does not reply within five days will have forfeited the opportunity to approve or disapprove the abstract.
      4. A convener whose ability to render a scientifically impartial opinion regarding the abstract may be compromised (for example, the convener is the presenter) should voluntarily recuse himself (herself) from the convener role for the abstract and request that the SD appoint a PWG member to act as convener pro tem for the abstract.
      5. If there is no reply from any PWG convener within the five days, the SD will need to act in place of the PWG to approve or disapprove the abstract.
      6. If there are two conveners within a PWG who cannot reach a common decision, the SD will need to side with one or the other opinion to approve or disapprove the abstract.
      7. If there are three conveners within a PWG, the majority opinion shall prevail.
      8. When more than one PWG is reviewing an abstract, the decision of the primary PWG will prevail if the two PWGs do not concur.
      9. If the abstract is approved by the PWG(s), the presenter must post the abstract to the startalks list at least one week prior to the submission due date. Comments are to be sent to the presenter with a copy to the startalks_l. Any suggested major revisions must be received within the first five days of this one-week period to be considered. If any substantive concerns or objections are raised from the collaboration or if substantial content has changed after the PWG approval, the SD will confer with the relevant PWG conveners and the presenter to determine the best course of action.
      10. In recognition that the process has been successfully concluded, the SD should post a note to the startalks_l noting that the abstract has been approved (or disapproved). The SD shall provide the chairperson of the STAR Talks Committee with the following information: the name of the presenter, the title of the presentation, the venue at which the presentation will be given, the dates for the venue, and whether this is a contributed or an invited presentation.
      11. In all instances, a decision by the PWG to disapprove an abstract must be accompanied by a supporting rationale for the disapproval.
      12. The presenter shall submit the approved abstract on time.
   4. The intended presentation will require review as follows:
      1. A nearly complete draft presentation must be posted to the relevant PWG(s) at least two weeks prior to the start of the venue at which the presentation is to be given. Presenters are strongly encouraged to submit the presentation substantially earlier than the two weeks if substantive physics issues are likely to arise in the approval process. Presentations that are submitted to the PWG(s) less than the two weeks time may be rejected by the PWG(s).
      2. Comments on the presentation should be sent to the presenter and the PWG list(s).
      3. Each convener of the PWG shall post to the respective PWG and to the SD an approval or disapproval of the presentation within one week of the presentation posting. A convener who does not reply within one week will have forfeited the opportunity to approve or disapprove the presentation.
      4. A convener whose ability to render a scientifically impartial opinion regarding the presentation may be compromised (for example, the convener is the presenter) should voluntarily recuse himself (herself) from the convener role for the presentation and request that the SD appoint a PWG member to act as convener pro tem for the presentation.
      5. If there is no reply from any PWG convener within the one week, the SD will need to act in place of the PWG to approve or disapprove the presentation.
      6. If there are two conveners within a PWG who cannot reach a common decision, the SD will need to side with one or the other opinion to approve or disapprove the presentation.
      7. If there are three conveners within a PWG, the majority opinion shall prevail.
      8. When more than one PWG is reviewing a presentation, the decision of the primary PWG will prevail if the two PWGs do not concur.
      9. If the presentation is approved by the PWG(s), the presenter must post the complete presentation to the startalks list at least one week prior to the start of the venue at which the presentation is to be given. Comments are to be sent to the presenter with a copy to the startalks list. Any suggested major revisions must be received within the first five days of this one-week period to be considered. If any substantive concerns or objections are raised from the collaboration or if substantial content has changed after the PWG approval, the SD will confer with the relevant PWG conveners and the presenter to determine the best course of action.
      10. In recognition that the process has been successfully concluded, the SD should post a note to the startalks_l noting that the presentation has been approved (or disapproved).
      11. In all instances, a decision by the PWG to disapprove a presentation must be accompanied by a supporting rationale for the disapproval.
   5. The presenter must rehearse the presentation before several members of the STAR collaboration to include the Council representative from the presenter's institute or designated substitute. The Council representative or designated substitute shall so inform the SD that this step has been satisfactorily completed. (For major conferences, such as Quark Matter, there will be a rehearsal before the collaboration, which is scheduled by the spokesperson, prior to presentation of the results.)
   6. After the presentation is given, the presenter must post the presentation on the presentations website. It is the responsiblity of the presenter's Council member and the PWG convener to ensure this posting is done.

8. All Other Presentations: Besides the Approved STAR Presentations, there are many venues at which STAR collaborators will present STAR Results. These include, but are not limited to oral presentations with accompanying visuals: seminars and colloquia, job interviews, funding requests and reports, Ph.D. thesis defense, laboratory reviews, etc. These policies have no intention of monitoring these presentations, either in content or in place or time or venue. There are, however, several general and a few specific comments that do apply.
   1. While these Other Presentations do not formally represent STAR (as in Approved STAR Presentations) they do report on STAR Results and it is clear to the listener/reader that the presenter is a member of the STAR collaboration. Therefore, it is not possible for this presentation, especially its content, to be divorced from STAR and it is entirely likely that it will be inferred that the presenter speaks for STAR. This is not all bad; these presentations can help to spread news of the good work at STAR in other venues. But, the presenter is urged to err on the side of caution.
   2. Published STAR Results are, of course, the preferred content for these presentations. Public STAR Results, assuming these have not been superceded by more current results, are also acceptable. In a presentation that includes any STAR Results that are not Published STAR Results, the presentation must make it absolutely clear that these STAR Results are "preliminary". The text or oral presentation should not claim or conclude more than is appropriate for STAR Results that are not Published STAR Results but are preliminary.
   3. Wisdom would suggest that, if possible, the presentation be shared with at least one or more STAR collaborators to help guard against misrepresenting STAR and creating an embarrassmant for the presenter and for STAR.
   4. The presenter is encouraged to practice the presentation in the presence of another STAR collaborator(s) and, perhaps the Council representative unless confidentiality dictates otherwise.
   5. Finally, because these Other Presentations are not formally monitored by STAR even though they will, even tacitly, represent STAR, it is incumbant on the presenter to be faithful to these guidelines in the spirit of collaboration and collegiality.

   SELECTION OF PRESENTERS TO REPRESENT STAR:

9. The STAR Presentations Committee: To aid and guide this selection process, the Spokesperson will designate a STAR Presentations Committee of at least seven (7) persons, each serving for two (2) years. The spokesperson will annually appoint one member as chair of the STAR Presentations Committee, preferably from among the continuing members, to serve for one (1) year. Appointments should be made prior to the summer collaboration meeting. (Reappointments are not prohibited.) The STAR Presentations Committee will strive to distribute speaking invitations received by the Collaboration on the basis of suitability of the speaker to the topic, and an equitable distribution of presentations to individuals and institutions with appropriate consideration of regional distinctions. As an aid to this end, a record of presentations will be maintained on the presentations website and a list of future conferences relevant to STAR will be maintained on the startalks website.
   1. Personal Invitations to Speak: Members of the Collaboration who receive personal invitations to give presentations that will represent the STAR collaboration must inform the Spokesperson (by e-mail) at the time the invitation is received. The spokesperson will consult with the STAR Presentations Committee to assure that the invitee is the appropriate presenter. (It is assumed that there will need to be persuasive arguments made to alter the name of the STAR representative as presenter.) The presenter will follow the guidelines for Approved STAR Presentations. .

   CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS:

10. Submission of Conference Proceedings: For all conference proceedings (or similar write-ups of the presentation not necessarily posted to the conference) that are prepared by a STAR-selected presenter (Approved STAR presentation) these steps must be followed. For proceedings that are more technical in nature, the SD may assign the review role normally taken by the PWG(s) to a more specialized technical group within STAR (e.g., a detector subsystem group, a computing group, or an adhoc group for special cases) who will report their review to the SD. With this modification, the review of such proceedings is to follow the steps below including relevant time constraints.
    1. A draft of the proceedings must be submitted to the relevant PWG(s) for review at least two weeks prior to the due date for submission of the proceedings. Presenters are strongly encouraged to submit the proceedings substantially earlier than the two weeks if substantive physics issues are likely to arise in the approval process. Proceedings that are submitted to the PWG(s) less than the two weeks time may be rejected by the PWG(s).
    2. Comments on the proceedings should be sent to the presenter and the PWG list(s). All STAR Results that are not Published STAR Results must be clearly labeled "Preliminary" in any conference proceedings. Moreover, the PWG should be attentive to the text to guard against statements that compromise the preliminary nature of the STAR Results described in the submission.
    3. Each convener of the PWG(s) shall post to the respective PWG and to the SD an approval or disapproval of the proceedings within one week of the proceedings posting. A convener who does not reply within one week will have forfeited the opportunity to approve or disapprove the proceedings.
    4. A convener whose ability to render a scientifically impartial opinion regarding the proceedings may be compromised (for example, the convener is the presenter) should voluntarily recuse himself (herself) from the convener role for the proceedings and request that the SD appoint a PWG member to act as convener pro tem for the proceedings.
    5. If there is no reply from any PWG convener within the one week, the SD will need to act in place of the PWG to approve or disapprove the proceedings.
    6. If there are two conveners within a PWG who cannot reach a common decision, the SD will need to side with one or the other opinion to approve or disapprove the proceedings.
    7. If there are three conveners within a PWG, the majority opinion shall prevail.
    8. When more than one PWG is reviewing a proceedings, the decision of the primary PWG will prevail if the two PWGs do not concur.
    9. If the proceedings are approved by the PWG(s), the presenter shall post a complete draft of the proceedings to the startalks list at least one week prior to the due date for submission of the proceedings. Comments are to be sent to the presenter with a copy to the startalks list. Any suggested major revisions must be received within the first five days of this one-week period to be considered. If any substantive concerns or objections are raised from the collaboration or if substantial content has changed after the PWG approval, the SD will confer with the relevant PWG conveners and the presenter to determine the best course of action.
    10. In recognition that the process has been successfully concluded, the SD should post a note to the startalks_l noting that the proceedings have been approved (or disapproved).
    11. In all instances, a decision by the PWG to disapprove a conference proceedings must be accompanied by a supporting rationale for the disapproval.

11. Preliminary STAR Results: All STAR Results that are not Published STAR Results must be clearly labeled "Preliminary" in any conference proceedings. Moreover, the PWG should be attentive to the text to guard against statements that compromise the preliminary nature of the STAR Results described in the submission.

    PUBLICATION OF STAR RESULTS IN PEER-REVIEWED JOURNALS

    These policies and procedures address the publication of STAR Results only in peer-reviewed journals. Publication of STAR Results that are not Published STAR Results on preprint archives or in textbooks is not permitted. The publication of conference proceedings as described above and the posting described in 17.g. are exceptions. Moreover, the "publication" of STAR Results that are neither Published STAR Results nor Public STAR Results on web pages, personal or organizational, is not permitted; these may only be posted on secure websites.

    Technical publications (e.g., description of a new or improved STAR subsystem, STAR electronics, STAR computing methods or hardware, etc.) most often will have a limited number of authors (not the STAR Collaboration), and will be reviewed by the STAR upgrades comimittee or the STAR computing group. The SD will monitor the process. If the publication is to contain physics content, the SD may request the PWG conveners to review the publication. A technical paper will, under no circumstances, contain STAR Results that are neither Published STAR Results nor Public STAR Results. This prepublication review will not require a Godparent Committee. A prepublication posting to starpapers_l is recommended.

12. An early preview of papers under consideration should be discussed within the Physics Working Group(s) of interest. If the paper is assigned to two PWGs, one shall be designated as the primary PWG and its decisions shall prevail if the two PWGs are unable to reach common agreement. This preview should include a brief introduction to the paper, an outline of the data and physics issues to be addressed in the paper, and draft copies of the figures and tables that would appear in the paper. When the conveners of that PWG agree, the Spokesperson or the Physics Analysis Coordinator will provide this material to the PWG Conveners. (If the PWG has two conveners and they are unable to agree, the SD shall side with one or the other to decide to approve or not. If there ar three conveners, the majority decision shall prevail.) The principal author(s) will then present the proposal for discussion during a PWG Conveners meeting. The subsequent recommendation from the Conveners concerning the proposed paper is advisory to the principal author(s) and the Godparent committee.

13. Review and Discussion in PWG: It is anticipated that the analysis and initial draft of manuscripts describing STAR Results will originate in the PWG(s), with the possible exception of manuscripts describing technical accomplishments. The PWG(s) will work with the PAs to vet the physics analysis and, through careful reading of drafts of the manuscript, help to assure that the manuscript is "sound", i.e., accurate, complete, and well written in all its parts. In parallel, the PWG(s) will assure that a STAR technical note, as described below, is prepared. When the PWG(s) are agreed (see above) that the manuscript is sound and the technical note is current and complete, the convener(s) shall so inform the spokesperson and request that a GPC be appointed to provide an independent review of the manuscript.

14. The God-Parent Committee: Upon receipt of the draft of a paper and the STAR technical note relating to that paper (see below), the spokesperson shall appoint a Godparent Committee (GPC) to act as an internal STAR editorial board to guide the paper to journal submission.
    1. The GPC will have an appointed chairperson, a representative from the PWG, one or more of the PAs, and at least two additional STAR collaborators, one of whom will be designated as responsible for the grammer and logical flow of the content of the manuscript. All of the appointees should agree that this service will be a high priority for them so as to expedite the publication of the paper.
    2. The GPC will meet no later than three weeks after their appointment to establish a schedule for their work that will be shared with the PWG conveners and the spokesperson.
    3. The GPC will review the paper to ensure that the presentation of the physics (or technical) message and the data is clear and persuasive. It should take into account the overall construction of the paper and the logical flow of the text as well as the technical accuracy and the correctness of the analysis. The GPC should affirm that the most current author list and acknowledgments are used.
    4. Through interaction with the PAs and the PWG (or technical group) from which it originated, the GPC will provide recommendations regarding changes necessary for the submission of the paper to the collaboration and for its ultimate publication.
    5. The GPC chairperson is encouraged to provide timely (e.g., bi-weekly) reports to the relevant PWG (or technical group) on the GPC progress.
    6. After approval from the GPC (at least 75% of the GPC members must approve), the paper will be made available on the starpapers mailing list for comments from the collaboration as a whole for a minimum of two weeks. In rare and unusual circumstances, the spokesperson may abbreviate this period for collaboration comment. Collaboration members should communicate their comments to the starpapers mailing list as soon as possible within the designated time for review.
    7. When the GPC is agreed (at least 75% of the GPC members must agree) that the paper is ready for submission to the designated journal, the GPC chairperson will so inform the spokesperson who will consider this recommendation, and if approved, will authorize the PAs to submit the paper for publication in the approved journal and to post it to the preprint arXiv.
    8. Throughout the process the GPC will strive to facilitate the process so that speedy publication can be accomplished.
    9. The SD should provide a report to the STAR council at least once per year detailing a summary of the GPC process in shepherding manuscripts through to journal submission (e.g., the time spent in GPC, the number of papers approved and submitted in 12 months, the number of papers with long GPC times, specific problems, special achevements, and recommendations for improvements and changes.)

15. Five STAR Institutions Reading: Concurrent with the posting of the paper to the collaboration (see above) the SD will specify five STAR institutions to review and comment on the paper. This reading and commenting is not expected to be done by experts but by any of the STAR authors on the paper from these institutions and will not duplicate the work done by the experts on the PWG (or technical group) or the GPC. These comments will be incorporated in a final draft to the extent the GPC and the PAs conclude they are relevant and appropriate. Council representatives from these institutions are responsible for timely comments to the starpapers mailing list within the two week period from his/her institution. The selection of the five institutions is at the discretion of the spokesperson and will rotate among all STAR member institutions. In rare and unusual circumstances, the spokesperson may bypass this step in the review process.
    

16. Referee's Reports: Referees' reports should be distributed to the collaboration upon receipt by the corresponding author. When follow-up is required, the principal author(s) and GPC should distribute their response to the referees and the revised manuscript to the collaboration just prior to resubmission. If there are rather major changes to the manuscript, it should be made available on the starpapers mailing list for comments from the collaboration as a whole for one week. The spokesperson will provide guidance in the process and will adjudicate any conflicts and will finally authorize resubmission of the manuscript. The spokesperson may appoint an independent ad hoc Adjudication Advisory Committee to advise the spokesperson on how to resolve difficult conflicts and thereby expedite the process. During the GPC review process, the related technical note shall be revised as needed to reflect the final content of the paper.

17. Archive of the Acceped Manuscript: When the paper has been accepted for publication by the relevant journal the PAs are responsible for posting the paper, as accepted, to the preprint arXiv.

18. The Related Technical Note: The related technical note shall be prepared by the PAs and reviewed by the PWG and submitted to a protected STAR web site designated for this purpose. In general, the contents of the technical note should contain sufficient information so that an experienced student/young postdoc should be able to repeat the analysis and get the same results. The content and format of the technical note, the site for archiving the technical note, and the location for archiving the relevant computer codes are established and maintained by the SD.

19. Single or Few Authorship Papers:
    1. That include Preliminary STAR Results:

       Comment: The intent here is to avoid placing Preliminary STAR Results in the public print domain to which citations can point. The concern is that these Preliminary STAR Results can, and at times do change rather dramatically yielding substantially altered physics interpretations. It does not reflect well on STAR to have STAR Results, albeit Preliminary STAR Results in print that may then have to be superceded and corrected. (The routine exception to this concern is the case of Conference Proceedings for which case it is clear that these Preliminary STAR Results were presented orally and visually at conference and represent a "work in progress.") The policy admits exceptions and provides guidelines for them as follows:

       In general, STAR Collaborators should not publish "single" or "few" author papers that include Preliminary STAR Results. Exceptions may be granted by the Spokesperson if, at a minimum, the Preliminary STAR Results are with the GPC or approved by the PWG and such publication of these Preliminary STAR Results will not negatively impact the final STAR publication of the result.

    2. That include only Published STAR Results:

       Comment: The following policy represents a courtesy gesture and permits the spokesperson to anticipate any possible conflict between this paper and other star work in progress. This policy is not intended as a formal review or approval or censorship.

       If a STAR Collaborator(s) writes a "single" or "few" author paper that includes only Published STAR Results, the author(s) should provide a copy of the manuscript to the Spokesperson a few days prior to journal submission.

    AUTHORSHIP:

20. The STAR Author List:

    The official STAR Author List will be maintained by the SD and published on the STAR Author List website.

    At least once per year, the Spokesperson shall solicit an author list from each institution via the STAR council representative. Inclusion in the institution's author list implies that the individual must have worked on STAR for at least one half year and must have contributed to the construction of detector hardware, or to software development, and/or to the taking or analysis of STAR data. In general, those collaborators on an institution's author list are encouraged to contribute to some aspect of the construction, operation, and maintenance of STAR. Normally, authors who have been STAR collaborators for at least one full year will ramain on the institution's author list for one year after leaving the Collaboration. Changes to the institution's author list may be made between annual solicitations by communicating these to the SD by email.

    All persons listed on the STAR Author List will be authors on all STAR physics publications. In infrequent cases, one or more STAR-authors may choose not to be listed among the authors on a given paper. This may arise because of disagreements with the contents of the paper that were unable to be resolved. In these cases it is the responsiblity of these authors to notify the spokesperson and the GPC in writing (e-mail) of their request to be removed from the author list for that specific paper.

    Occasionally additional authors (who are not listed on the STAR Author List) may be added to list of authors on specific physics papers. Such additions may include a student or a former STAR collaborator who has left the collaboration for more than one year, who have made significant contributions to a detector in STAR or to the analysis or software development that was important for this physics result. Such inclusions can be initiated by the relevant council representative or the principal authors (PAs) on the paper. The inclusion must be endorsed by the PAs and approved by the SD.

    The authors of papers will be listed in alphabetical order, preceded or followed by the phrase "STAR Collaboration". Papers for conference proceedings are normally submitted in the speaker's name, plus other major contributors if appropriate, plus "STAR Collaboration".

    Technical papers need only list as authors those individuals who contributed to that project, but the "STAR Collaboration" should be acknowledged.

    STUDENT THESIS TOPICS:

21. Graduate Student Theses: The Spokesperson will maintain a list of students' thesis topics that will be posted on a website and that will be updated annually. Council members are urged to inform the spokesperson of student thesis topics chosen or changed at any time. In addition, the relevant PWG should also be apprised of the student's topic. The Council may aid in resolving any conflicts.

    PRESS RELEASES:

22. Refrain from Press Releases: Members of the Collaboration should not issue press releases or call press conferences without the approval of the Spokesperson, who will consult with the members of the Council.

    ERRONEOUS PUBLICATIONS:

23. Procedures for Handling Mistakes in Publications: Examples of mistakes include, but are not limited to the following: something that is fundamentally wrong in the analysis leading to erroneous results, a plot/graph that incorrectly represents the present work or the work of others, a statement or statements that improperly describe the analysis or the results or the implications of the results. Somewhat less serious mistakes include a misstatement describing the work of others, the inclusion of the work of others without proper attribution, a missed citation or reference, an incorrect historical statement, an erroneous attribution, or a plot/graph with minor mistakes. When a mistake is discovered in a STAR publication, and depending on its severity, the following actions should be considered and, if appropriate, some or all should be implemented by the Spokesperson in consultation with the PAs, the relevant PWGs conveners, and the GPC:
    1. Inform the community as soon as the mistake is discovered by notifying the BNL Associate Director for Nuclear and Particle Physics and the Spokesperson of the other RHIC experiments.
    2. Inform all STAR Collaborators about the problem and that the erroneous result should not be used in any presentations, papers, etc.
    3. Consider a formal retraction if the mistake changes the qualitative implications of the publication.
    4. Form an internal committee to investigate and understand the origin of the mistake and any lessons that can be learned from the incident.
    5. Once a new result is available this committee will verify its reliability. The new result will then be publicized in a presentation at an appropriate meeting or conference.
    6. Publish an erratum and, if appropriate, publish a new paper with the correct results. The process for the review of the erratum must follow the procedures for publication of STAR Results. The membership of the GPC may be the same as that for the original paper. The author list for the erratum should be the same as the author list for the original publication (including authors who have since left STAR) and may include additional authors who have made specific contributions to this erratum, including new results.