Nature Nature and GRBsand GRBs

Leslie SageSenior Editor, Physical Sciences

Nature

2008 Nanjing GRB Conference

SummarySummary

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 Top 20 GRB papers as tracked by ADS (16 May 2008 search)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

1 797 Woosley 1993ApJ.405..273W Gamma-ray bursts from stellar mass accretion disks around black holes2 740 Galama et al. 1998Natur.395..670G An unusual supernova in the error box of the γ-ray burst of 25 April 19983 714 Woosley & MacFadyen 1999ApJ.524..262M Collapsars: Gamma-Ray Bursts and Explosions in ``Failed Supernovae''4 667 Band et al. 1993ApJ.413..281B BATSE observations of gamma-ray burst spectra. I - Spectral diversity5 645 Sari et al. 1998ApJ.497L..17S Spectra and Light Curves of Gamma-Ray Burst Afterglows6 615 Piran 1999PhR.314..575P Gamma-ray bursts and the fireball mode7 603 Paczynski 1998ApJ.494L..45P Are Gamma-Ray Bursts in Star-Forming Regions?8 599 Frail et al. 2001ApJ.562L..55F Beaming in Gamma-Ray Bursts: Evidence for a Standard Energy Reservoir9 540 Costa et al. 1997Natur.387..783C Discovery of an X-ray afterglow associated with the γ-ray burst of 28 February 199710 540 Paczynski 1986ApJ.308L..43P Gamma-ray bursters at cosmological distances11 519 van Paradijs et al. 1997Natur.386.686v Transient optical emission from the error box of the γ-ray burst of 28 February 199712 514 Hjorth et al. 2003Natur.423..847H A very energetic supernova associated with the γ-ray burst of 29 March 200313 512 Meszaros & Rees 1997ApJ.476..232M Optical and Long-Wavelength Afterglow from Gamma-Ray Bursts14 502 Stanek et al. 2003ApJ.591L..17S Spectroscopic Discovery of the Supernova 2003dh Associated with GRB 03032915 498 Kouveliotou et al. 1993ApJ.413L..101K Identification of two classes of gamma-ray bursts16 486 Metzger et al. 1997Natur.387..878M Spectral constraints on the redshift of the optical counterpart to the γ-ray burst of 8 May 199717 479 Meegan et al. 1992Natur.355..143M Spatial distribution of gamma-ray bursts observed by BATSE18 439 Klebesadel et al. 1973ApJ.182L..85K Observations of Gamma-Ray Bursts of Cosmic Origin19 436 Sari et al. 1999ApJ.519L..17S Jets in Gamma-Ray Bursts20 430 Narayan et al. 1992ApJ.395L..83N Gamma-ray bursts as the death throes of massive binary stars

Observational papers that made a differenceObservational papers that made a difference

(from my perspective – a non-GRB person– (from my perspective – a non-GRB person– so apols to anyone who feels left out)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 papersInfluential 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)Mistakes I’ve made (published)(though receiving strong (though receiving strong

recommendations from referees)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’ fieldGRBs 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 Ways to deal with a mature fieldfield

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 remainingBig problems remaining(if you can answer these, contact (if you can answer these, contact

me!)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 As scientists, we receive no training in how to no training in how to write good papers.write good papers.

We read the literature, and repeat the mistakes others

make!

Answer the following Answer the following questions to write a good questions to write a good

Nature Nature paperpaper 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?

NatureNature papers must be papers must be comprehensible to a wide comprehensible to a wide

audienceaudience 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 A NatureNature paper should 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 What does NatureNature look for look for in a theory paper?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

NatureNature’s preprint server ’s preprint server policypolicy

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

NatureNature can help the can help the communitycommunity

We can publish news items, We can publish news items, commentaries and editorials that commentaries and editorials that highlight issues of importancehighlight issues of importance

Contact me!Contact me!

Contact Contact NatureNature in advance in advance of submissionof submission

I can be reached at ‘l.sage@naturedc.com’ or +1 202 626 2511

pre-submission inquiries via the web ‘mts-nature.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