Transcript Publishing in Nature

Nature and GRBs
Leslie Sage
Senior Editor, Physical Sciences
Nature
2008 Nanjing GRB Conference
Summary





Nature publishes ~7% of submissions
we want only the best, most important work
When a field is new, almost any new data are
interesting/important
As the field matures, more care must be taken in
selecting papers
GRB research is moving into the mature era
Top 20 GRB papers as tracked by ADS
(16 May 2008 search)




















Woosley 1993ApJ.405..273W -- 797
Galama et al. 1998Natur.395..670G – 740
Woosley & MacFadyen 1999ApJ.524..262M – 714
Band et al. 1993ApJ.413..281B – 667
Sari et al. 1998ApJ.497L..17S – 645
Piran 1999PhR.314..575P –615
Paczynski 1998ApJ.494L..45P – 603
Frail et al. 2001ApJ.562L..55F – 599
Costa et al. 1997Natur.387..783C – 540
Paczynski 1986ApJ.308L..43P – 540
van Paradijs et al. 1997Natur.386.686v – 519
Hjorth et al. 2003Natur.423..847H – 514
Meszaros & Rees 1997ApJ.476..232M – 512
Stanek et al. 2003ApJ.591L..17S – 502
Kouveliotou et al. 1993ApJ.413L..101K – 498
Metzger et al. 1997Natur.387..878M -- 486
Meegan et al. 1992Natur.355..143M -- 479
Klebesadel et al. 1973ApJ.182L..85K -- 439
Sari et al. 1999ApJ.519L..17S -- 436
Narayan et al. 1992ApJ.395L..83N -- 430
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
797
740
714
667
645
615
603
599
540
540
519
514
512
502
498
486
479
439
436
430
Woosley
Galama et al.
Woosley & MacFadyen
Band et al.
Sari et al.
Piran
Paczynski
Frail et al.
Costa et al.
Paczynski
van Paradijs et al.
Hjorth et al.
Meszaros & Rees
Stanek et al.
Kouveliotou et al.
Metzger et al.
Meegan et al.
Klebesadel et al.
Sari et al.
Narayan et al.
1993ApJ.405..273W
1998Natur.395..670G
1999ApJ.524..262M
1993ApJ.413..281B
1998ApJ.497L..17S
1999PhR.314..575P
1998ApJ.494L..45P
2001ApJ.562L..55F
1997Natur.387..783C
1986ApJ.308L..43P
1997Natur.386.686v
2003Natur.423..847H
1997ApJ.476..232M
2003ApJ.591L..17S
1993ApJ.413L..101K
1997Natur.387..878M
1992Natur.355..143M
1973ApJ.182L..85K
1999ApJ.519L..17S
1992ApJ.395L..83N
Gamma-ray bursts from stellar mass accretion disks around black holes
An unusual supernova in the error box of the γ-ray burst of 25 April 1998
Collapsars: Gamma-Ray Bursts and Explosions in ``Failed Supernovae''
BATSE observations of gamma-ray burst spectra. I - Spectral diversity
Spectra and Light Curves of Gamma-Ray Burst Afterglows
Gamma-ray bursts and the fireball mode
Are Gamma-Ray Bursts in Star-Forming Regions?
Beaming in Gamma-Ray Bursts: Evidence for a Standard Energy Reservoir
Discovery of an X-ray afterglow associated with the γ-ray burst of 28 February 1997
Gamma-ray bursters at cosmological distances
Transient optical emission from the error box of the γ-ray burst of 28 February 1997
A very energetic supernova associated with the γ-ray burst of 29 March 2003
Optical and Long-Wavelength Afterglow from Gamma-Ray Bursts
Spectroscopic Discovery of the Supernova 2003dh Associated with GRB 030329
Identification of two classes of gamma-ray bursts
Spectral constraints on the redshift of the optical counterpart to the γ-ray burst of 8 May 1997
Spatial distribution of gamma-ray bursts observed by BATSE
Observations of Gamma-Ray Bursts of Cosmic Origin
Jets in Gamma-Ray Bursts
Gamma-ray bursts as the death throes of massive binary stars
Observational papers that made a difference
(from my perspective – a non-GRB person– so
apols to anyone who feels left out)








Klebesadel et al. (1973) – of course!
Meegan et al. (1992) – isotropic distribution
Kouveliotou et al. (1993) – two classes of GRBs
van Paradijs et al. (1997) & Costa et al. (1997) – the first
counterparts
Metzger et al. (1998) – first redshift
Galama et al. (1998), Kulkarni et al. (1998), Bloom et al.
(1999), Hjorth et al. (2003) & Stanek et al. (2003) –
supernova connection
Frail et al. (2001) – common energy scale (I count
rejecting this as my worst GRB mistake)
Gehrels et al. (2005), Villasenor et al. (2005), Fox et al.
(2005), Hjorth et al. (2005) – first counterparts to the
short-hard bursts
Influential theory papers




Meszaros & Rees (1997), Rees & Meszaros
(1992), (1994), Sari et al. (1998), Piran (1999) –
fireball model
Eichler et al. (1989) – coalescing neutron stars
Woosley (1993), Iwamoto et al. (1998),
MacFadyen & Woosley (1999) – supernova
connection
Usov (1992) – making a comeback?
Mistakes I’ve made (published)
(though receiving strong
recommendations from referees)



Burst from a regenerative source (Liang &
Kargatis 1996)
Lines (Reeves et al. 2002)
Strong polarization (Coburn & Boggs
2003)
GRBs as a ‘mature’ field



Connection of long bursts to massive stars
seems inescapable (although 060614 was
atypical and perhaps a new type/class?)
Redshifts typically are high (mean z~2.8,
7% with z>5; Jakobsson et al. 2006)
Counterparts to short bursts seen, and a
few redshifts determined
Ways to deal with a mature field



Eliminating overlapping authorship, which
encourages submission of “me too” papers
Discouraging “me too” papers (papers
with similar data and conclusions)
Need for speed is less evident (van
Paradijs et al. 1997 submitted 25 March,
accepted 29 March, published 17 April
1997)
Big problems remaining
(if you can answer these, contact me!)







What exactly is the central engine, and how long
does it last?
Is a GRB baryonic or magnetic?
What really causes the short bursts? i.e. How
can we tell if it’s a merger?
What is the redshift distribution of the short
bursts?
Where are the Swift iron (and other) lines?
What causes the variation in burst optical (and
radio) luminosities?
Are we missing very high-z bursts? (z>10, i.e.
Amati et al. 2002)
As scientists, we receive no
training in how to write
good papers.
We read the literature, and
repeat the mistakes others
make!
Answer the following questions
to write a good Nature paper




Why is the topic interesting?
What big problems are there in the
field?
What have you done?
How does the work advance us
towards a solution of one of the big
problems?
Nature papers must be
comprehensible to a wide
audience
first paragraph of a Letter should be
no higher than the level of an
introductory undergraduate class
 bulk of the paper at the level of a
first-year graduate course in the field

A Nature paper should





report a fundamental new physical insight,
or
announce a startling, unexpected or
difficult-to-understand discovery, or
have striking conceptual novelty
be very important to your field
being correct is insufficient!
What does Nature look for in
a theory paper?
Authors must be prepared to
defend the position that their paper
provides the right (or at least best
available) explanation
 They should also make a prediction
that could be used to refute the
model within the next few years

Nature’s preprint server policy




Posting to ArXiv is allowed as a
communication between scientists
If journalists contact you based on the web
posting, simply ask them to contact you again a
week before publication
Journalists can write whatever they want based
upon a posting – there is no embargo when
posted!
See editorial: 4 Dec 1997; 390, 427
Nature can help the community
We can publish news items,
commentaries and editorials that
highlight issues of importance
 Contact me!

Contact Nature in advance of
submission



I can be reached at
‘[email protected]’ or +1 202 626
2511
pre-submission inquiries via the web ‘mtsnature.nature.com’ (I prefer to deal directly with
authors, though many editors do not)
be prepared to answer questions about the significance
of the results