Bylaws of the CLAS Collaboration

Last revision: March 2010
(maintained by Reinhard Schumacher

Motions, resolutions, and procedures approved by the Collaboration during formal business meetings which are currently in effect to govern implementation of various Charter policies.

  1. Duties of Full Members ( A1.Shift Staffing, & A2. Service Work)
  2. Election of New Members
  3. Publications
  4. Talks (D1. CLAS Speakers Committee, & D2. Release of Scientific Results)
  5. Analysis of existing data (CLAS Approved Analyses -- "CAA")
  6. Data Cooking (Offline Technical Working Group)
  7. Review of Proposals and Letters of Intent
More extensive cross-referencing may be found in the Master Index


As amended and approved by unanimous vote
at the CLAS Collaboration meeting of 1/22/2000
I. General Policies

CLAS shifts are manned by two people at all times, one shift expert (or "leader") and one shift worker. Expert shifts start at 00:00, 08:00 and 16:00 and worker shifts start at 04:00, 12:00 and 20:00.

Each collaborating institution has a contact person responsible for filling all shifts assigned to that institution. The method for choosing shift personnel is left to the discretion of the contact person and his or her institution, but must conform to the overall guidelines described here. The current shift schedule and shift-schedule editor are available at

This by-law only deals with general shift-taking concerned with experimental data-taking. It does not deal with specialized shift-taking concerned with a particular detector or software element, nor with any other activity performed by collaboration members in fulfillment of their MOU's or physics program.

II. Shift Taker's Qualifications and Conduct of Operations

All "Expert" and "Worker" shift takers must meet certain criteria itemized here. In addition, anyone participating in data taking with CLAS must have a level of safety and radiation training described in the CLAS "Conduct of Operations" (COO) document. It provides an authoritative discussion of shift operations, including the duties and responsibilities of the shift Expert and the shift Worker. The COO is presently available at


All full and term members of the CLAS Collaboration are eligible for worker shifts. Limited members and non-members, including new graduate students, may be assigned shifts by the institutional contact persons supervising the filling of the shift schedule. Undergraduate students may not be assigned shifts without prior approval of the Physics Division Liaison (PDL, a.k.a. CLAS COP).

Prior to taking his or her first-ever scheduled shift, a person must be an observer on at least one shift in order to become familiar with procedures and (typically) to finish reading the required documents listed in the COO.


The list of expert shift takers who can act as shift leaders is determined by the PDL, who is responsible for the safe and effective operation of the system. Experts must be full or term members of CLAS. Expert status implies experience in running CLAS shifts, not necessarily expert knowledge of hardware and software components of the system.

Oral communication skills that enable effective communication with the accelerator staff are required for shift leaders. The PDL must be satisfied that any given shift leading expert has adequate language skills.

If an individual is not qualified as an expert, the shift schedule page will not accept him or her for an expert shift.

III. Shift Scheduling

At six month intervals, the collaboration Shift Scheduler will revise the membership list of the collaboration maintained by the Membership Committee. Shifts will be assigned in 4 day blocks to all member institutions in proportion to their number of full and term members. Limited members will NOT be included in this enumeration.

A shift-trading period will be organized under the leadership of the Shift Scheduler to allow foreign, domestic, and local institutions to optimize their periods of shift-taking responsibility to their needs.

Any persons added to an institution's list of Worker shift takers by the institution's contact person will NOT thereby automatically become members of the CLAS collaboration. For example, new graduate students who are assigned shifts are not thereby made members of CLAS. By assigning shifts to non-members, an institution's contact person is certifying that the persons so assigned will have met the Worker shift taker's requirements by the time the shift starts.

The PDL has the authority to reject a person for a shift if he or she thinks that the person is unqualified. The relevant institution then has responsibility for finding a suitable replacement.

If a shift goes unfilled, either by no-show or no-qualify, the incident will be brought to the attention of the Membership Committee for possible action, such as removing institutional shift credits.


A2. Service Groups

Initiated by the Collaboration at Jan 10,'98 Business Meeting.
       Motion -- Mac Mestayer

"Each member must be listed with at least one "Service Group" -- details to be developed". The purpose of these groups shall be to coordinate and fairly account for shared responsibility in various maintenance and upkeep tasks, above and beyond shift staffing during actual running periods.

        Approved by Acclamation.

Implementation -- A subcommittee was formed to refine this concept for more detailed presentation at the next collaboration meeting. Mac Mestayer was appointed to Chair the sub-committee.


Further action at the June 6,'98 Business Meeting
The following resolution was brought to the floor by Mac Mestayer -- with the strong support of the Membership Committee.

"Now that CLAS has been built and commissioned the responsibilities of the member institutions have shifted from construction issues to those regarding operation, upgrades, calibration and analysis. To acknowledge this change, each institution shall provide a proposal for service work to the collaboration which will supplement the Memoranda of Understanding in defining collaboration duties in addition to the responsibilities of shift-taking.

The document shall explicitly state the nature and duration of the institution's proposed service work where service work is defined as the following:
- Service work can be hardware or software work which is beneficial to the collaboration as a whole.
- Service work does not include physics analyses per se, but does include physics calculations or software implementations which are general enough to be used by others.
- The service work proposal can be a single task or a collection of separate tasks taken by individuals within the institution.

The suitability of an institution's proposal for service work shall be judged by a joint committee comprised of members from both the membership committee and from the technical working group committee. The joint committee will work with the institution to resolve any issues regarding the kind or amount of work proposed. If disagreements can not be worked out between the institution and the joint committee, final authority rests with the whole collaboration."

APPROVED -- by show of hands.

Implementation -- Ken Hicks was subsequently appointed as founding chair of the Service Work Committee.


The following resolution clarifies the content of some forms of information exchange with prospective new members that were already a required component of previously existing procedure. Indeed it is deliberately formatted as a document suitable for transmission to potential candidates. It also refines some procedural steps from the earlier policy for consistency with more recent developments (e.g. the passage of an explicit Shift Staffing Policy), and adds the authority of formal approval by the Full Collaboration.
Initiated in CLAS Membership Committee
Chair -- Gail Dodge
Policy on Consideration of New Members
(Adopted by the Full Collaboration -- September 5, 1997)

The CLAS collaboration welcomes applications from groups or individuals interested in becoming full or limited members. Each class of membership has a set of rights and responsibilities that are matched according to a long-term or a short-term working arrangement with the collaboration.

A limited member becomes a member for a specific set of experiments, often for one specific experiment. This member class is discussed in the CLAS Charter.

A full member will most often join as a member of an existing CLAS group or as part of a new CLAS group. We regard the acceptance of a new full member as a significant commitment by both the member and the collaboration. Both sides should be confident that the responsibilities assumed by the new member are appropriate, i.e., well defined, significant, and consistent with available resources.

A primary part of the application is the definition of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) which outlines the activities of the new member to conduct experiments and analyze data with CLAS. New people joining existing CLAS groups can join existing MOU's if they are appropriately extended.


Following initial contact with a member of the Coordinating Committee, the following procedures will be used.

  1. Preliminary discussions with various members of the collaboration (including the Coordinating Committee, users, and CEBAF staff) will help each applicant to understand the workings of the collaboration and the views of its members. The Coordinating Committee should lead this process. A tentative MOU will be constructed identifying specific hardware, software, or service responsibilities. At any time in this process, the applicant could become a limited member.
  2. The tentative MOU will be submitted in writing to the CLAS Membership Committee. The applicant will meet with committee representatives to modify and complete the MOU as necessary. The Membership Committee will vote in a secret ballot whether or not to forward the application to the full collaboration. A 2/3 majority is required for passage. In the interest of developing a successful relationship, the applicants should meet with committee members prior to the meeting. Unsuccessful applications can be reconsidered.
  3. The Membership Committee will distribute the proposed application (including MOU) to each full member of the collaboration at least one month before the collaboration meeting at which the application will be considered. The case will be presented at a full collaboration meeting and voted on by confidential ballot coordinated by the Membership Committee. A 2/3 majority is required for acceptance.

[See below for previously existing internal procedures within the Membership Committee that remain in effect to specify the manner in which the early steps of items 1 and 2 will be implemented.]

The following By-laws were originally passed by the Membership Committee in November '93, (Rory Miskimen, Chair) -- and have been modified as necessary for consistency with more recent Policy updates.

These particular items originated as specifications within the membership committee of the procedures then in use to carry out the Membership Policy defined in the Charter, and thus must remain consistent with any subsequent statements that receive the support of the full collaboration (such as the 9/97 Dodge resolution) which refine the interpretation of that Policy.


The purpose of this set of bylaws is to initiate standard procedures for the nomination of individuals by the Membership Committee for membership in the collaboration, and for conducting the election of new members. The Charter determines the qualifications of new members, and that the members must be notified of the list of nominees at least 30 days in advance of the election. In addition the members of the Collaboration have voted that the nominee or nominator must appear in person at the meeting at which the elections are held.

Procedures are hereby presented concerning nominations, elections and information to be furnished to the New Members Committee. [Note: The Membership Committee organizational structure currently specifies two internal committees -- New Members, and Election of Officers.]

  1. Each year a notice will be sent by the Chair of the New Members committee to all current full members announcing the call for the nomination of new members.
  2. The New Members committee will request that the nominator furnish information that shows that the nominee is qualified for full membership. Normally this means that the nominator should show that the nominee is listed on a MOU and is aware of the responsibilities of membership, as specified in the Collaboration Charter and elsewhere in these By-Laws.
  3. The New Members committee shall verify that those nominated are qualified under the rules of the Charter and report their findings to the nominator.
  4. The New Members committee shall send information on the qualified nominees to the Chair of the Membership committee. The Chair of the Membership committee will then proceed to implement the remaining steps under 2. and 3. of the updated Membership Policy & Procedure approved in 9/91 (above).


Approved by unanimous vote at the CLAS Collaboration meeting of 1-22-2000,
Reinhard Schumacher, Chair.
Formalization of FastTrack approved at the CLAS Collaboration meeting of 7-24-2003
Hall Crannell, Chair.
"Opt-in" language approved at the CLAS Collaboration meeting of 6-13-2009
Dave Tedeschi, Chair.

Introduction: Section XI of the CLAS Charter provides the general rules for publishing results in peer-reviewed journals. The language in that section was adopted as a charter amendment in January 1998. This bylaw is intended to fill in the procedural details of this process.

  1. When is a scientific result ready for publication by CLAS?
    1. Normal Process: The Physics Working Groups (PWG) have the initial responsibility to recommend to the Coordinating Committee (CC) when a new CLAS result is ready to be published. The definition of, and the procedures for releasing new scientific results itemized in Bylaw D2 (on Talks) cover this first stage of the publication process.
    2. Fast Track: In exceptional cases, the authors of a paper may request a Fast Track designation for their paper. In such cases, the authors will submit a written request to the Chair of the Coordinating Committee, specifying in detail the need for Fast Track designation. At a minimum, the reasons submitted must defend the exceptional importance of the results and show clear indications of imminent publication of similar or confirming results by other laboratories. The Coordinating Committee will decide if Fast Track status is to be granted, and will inform the authors of this decision. If Fast Track status is granted, the Coordinating Committee will further decide whether or not a PWG analysis committee is required, with the condition that any decision to bypass such PWG review must be unanimous. Turnaround times on other review steps will be adjusted as indicated in 2) and 5) below.
  2. When should an Ad-Hoc committee be designated, and how long should it have to do its work?

    The CC will appoint an Ad-Hoc committee as soon as it is informed that a paper is being written. It is recommended that lead authors ask for an Ad-Hoc committee for their paper as soon as practical, in order that the concerns and criticisms of the committee can be addressed in a timely way. The committee can work with the authors to discuss issues related to publishability of a paper. When the Ad-Hoc committee is asked to review a finished draft of a paper, it should act within 15 days with recommendations regarding the paper -- reduced to 7 days for Fast Track.

  3. What should be the composition of the Ad-Hoc publication committees?

    The charter calls for an Ad-Hoc committee of usually 3 individuals tobe designated by the Coordinating Committee (CC) to review each paper presented to the CC for consideration. The Ad-Hoc committee shall be composed of persons not directly involved in the results to be published, and will have representation from at least two of the CLAS Physics Working Groups. At least one member shall be from the working group which is developing the paper. The members of the Ad-Hoc committee shall be announced to the Collaboration.

  4. Collaboration Review Mechanism:

    The paper will be available for review by the Collaboration in a secure (password-protected) area of the CLAS Web pages. No member of the Collaboration may disseminate the draft paper to persons outside the Collaboration until final Collaboration approval for publication is granted. In particular, distribution to e-print servers is not allowed until collaboration approval is granted.

  5. Time Limits:

    The normal comment period for feedback from the Collaboration to the authors and Ad-Hoc committee shall be at least 15 days. For FastTrack, the Collaboration shall be notified of FastTrack status and the draft shall be made available to the Collaboration for initial reading at the same time that it is assigned to the Ad Hoc committee. The feedback period is reduced to 7 days beyond the period specified in 2) for Ad-Hoc committee recommendations.

  6. When is a paper approved for publication?

    If there are NO comments from the Collaboration during the specified comment period, approval is granted, according to the charter. If there are one or more criticisms, then the authors must address these criticisms. The Ad-Hoc committee will decide whether to accept the responses, and whether to restart the comment period clock. In case of conflicts, the appeals mechanism in charter section XI.6 will be followed.

  7. Authorship:
    1. The rules of elegibility for co-authorship on CLAS Collaboration publications are given in Charter Section 11.B. Names will appear on an author list on an "opt-in" basis, meaning that each individual eligible member must assert his or her wish to be a co-author according to the following procedure. The following points specify the opt-in procedure:
      1. A paper submitted for Ad Hoc review shall carry the names of "lead" authors who are involved in the actual writing or who did the main work for that paper. While all authors bear some responsibility for the accuracy of the results reported in the paper, these "lead" authors, whose names will appear at the beginning of the author list, have the principal responsibility for the correctness of all details of the paper.
      2. The Membership Committee shall prepare a list of eligible co-authors for the paper prior to the Collaboration-wide review. A web-based "opt-in/opt-out" selection page shall be prepared by the Membership Committee before the paper is released for this review.
      3. The web-based opt-in/out interface must display the following text next to "opt-in" selection box: "I have participated in the CLAS Collaboration's physics program during the time leading to this publication. I have read this publication, and support, to the best of my understanding, the scientific conclusions set forth therein. I hereby exercise my eligibility to be listed as a co-author on this publication."
      4. The announcement of the Collaboration-wide review must remind all members that they must actively choose to be co-authors. The authorship interests of junior term members should be made clear to them by their mentors or Institutional Representatives (IR's). The lead authors shall be responsible for identifying relevant limited members who should be listed as authors.
      5. The full set of eligible authors must be visible to all members during the review period. The sub-set of members who have opted-in for co-authorship will also be visible during the review period. It is the responsibility of IR's to check that errors in the eligibility list are corrected in due time. The IR's also should make efforts to contact members who may be out of email contact during a review period.
      6. At the end of the Collaboration-wide review, the lead authors must prepare a draft of the paper with all co-authors listed, and announce to the Collaboration that it is available for final review of the author list. Since some time elapses between the end of the formal review period and the actual submission of the paper, any late opt-in choices can still be made. The period between the end of the collaboration-wide review and the submission of the paper shall be not less than 7 (seven) days. Any late additions to the author list must be made via personal appeal to the Membership Committee, not via the on-line voting page, and the Membership Committee shall verify eligibility.
    2. Term members who join the CLAS Collaboration will be included on CLAS publications after a six month waiting period. During this time the term members must demonstrate commitment to CLAS by doing service work for the Collaboration which was agreed upon at their time of joining. They will then be included as authors on CLAS publications (if they so choose) even if their own work did not directly contribute to the published analyses. The Membership Committee will judge whether the new term members have done suitable service work during the waiting period.
    3. Term and full members who withdraw from the CLAS Collaboration will be included (if they so choose) as authors on CLAS papers submitted for six months following their departure. (Nothing in this bylaw changes the authorship provisions specified in the CLAS charter, specifically see Charter Section 11.B)
    4. The list of authors is to be alphabetical from A to Z. The lead authors, however, will be listed first, in an order of their choosing. The list of lead authors will be reviewed by the relevant PWG. In cases where results of a Ph.D. project are published, the name of the student is to be listed first. Limited members added at the discretion of Spokespersons will be listed in the main body of the list. Disputes are to be mediated by the Coordinating Committee.


D1. CLAS Collaboration Speakers' Committee
Prepared by ad-hoc committee on Talks
Barry Ritchie, Chair
Adopted by the full membership -- October 1998
  1. Purpose, authorization, and powers

    According to the CLAS Collaboration Charter, the accurate and broad dissemination of results to the scientific community by talks from members of the CLAS Collaboration is the responsibility of the CLAS Coordinating Committee. To that end, the Coordinating Committee hereby establishes a Collaboration Speakers' Committee (herein referred to as the CSC). Except in the matter of appeals, the decision of the CSC concerning speaker selection will be accepted as the Coordinating Committee decision.

  2. Organization
    1. The CSC will consist of one member from each physics working group (PWG) and two at-large members.
    2. All members of the CSC will serve for a term of two years, with terms staggered as determined by random selection for the first election of CSC membership. The terms will begin September 1 following the election.
      1. In case of a vacancy or resignation from the CSC, the replacement CSC representative will begin serving immediately upon designation, and that person's term will last for the remainder of the unfulfilled term.
      2. No person may serve on the CSC for more than three consecutive terms.
    3. Each PWG will choose a representative and an alternate to the CSC.
      1. The alternate will serve in the absence of the chosen representative for any meeting and will exercise the same rights and responsibilities as the chosen representative for that meeting.
      2. The term of the alternate representative is also two years.
      3. In the case of a vacancy, the PWG will elect a person to fill the unfinished portion of the term vacated.
    4. The CLAS Coordinating Committee will choose two additional members for the CSC as at-large members and also select an alternate for each of the at-large members.
      1. The at-large members will be chosen such that their presence adds balance to the CSC in terms of representing, for instance, the interests of term members and international scientists.
      2. The terms of the at-large members will be staggered so that a new at-large member is selected each year.
      3. The two at-large members shall not be from the same physics working group.
      4. The Coordinating Committee will rotate the selection of the two at-large members so that each working group is represented during any two-year period.
      5. In case of a vacancy, the Coordinating Committee will choose a person to fill the unfinished portion of the vacated term.
    5. A member of the Coordinating Committee cannot be a member of CSC.
    6. The CSC will elect a chair at the first meeting of the CSC following September 1. The chair will serve for one year, but may be re-elected to serve additional terms as chair.
  3. Responsibilities of the CSC
    1. The CSC will actively solicit talks from conference organizers.
    2. The CSC will notify all CLAS Collaboration members of invitations for speakers to come from the collaboration.
    3. The CSC will select speakers to give talks using the procedure discussed in Section 4.
    4. The CSC will keep a listing of all talks given on CLAS results.
  4. Speaker selection by the CSC
    1. All spokespersons of related experiments and the appropriate PWG representative will be requested to submit written opinions to the CSC to inform the speaker selection process concerning any invited talk on CLAS results.
    2. Members can nominate themselves or other persons to respond to an invitation to speak. Those nominations must be in writing. Members may also contribute opinions in writing concerning speaker selection or the suitability of a talk on the proposed topic.
    3. The CSC will choose the speaker using criteria such as expertise, fairness, and service work.
      1. The main criterion is demonstrated expertise in the subject suggested by the conference organizers, particularly when an individual receives an invitation.
      2. Speaker choice will also be influenced by previous speaking history, the need to enhance the careers of junior members of the collaboration, and the quality and extent of a member's service work to CLAS.
      3. The PWG input to the selection decision, provided by the PWG representative to the CSC, will be given substantial weight.
    4. Appeals of any CSC decision can be made to the CLAS Coordinating Committee, which has the final decision on speaker selections in the case of appeal.
  5. Speaking activities covered by the CSC
    1. Invited talks for university seminars.
      1. CLAS Collaboration members are free to accept invitations for seminars and colloquia at individual schools.
      2. CLAS Collaboration members should notify the CSC of these seminars and colloquia.
      3. All results shown must be approved for dissemination as detailed in the "CLAS Coordinating Committee Bylaws for Release of CLAS Results."
    2. Conference and workshop invited talks.
      1. CLAS Collaboration members who receive invitations to speak at a conference or workshop will pass that request to the CSC with a discussion of who should give the associated talk.
      2. The CSC will select the speaker for that conference or workshop based on the procedure described in Section 4. The CSC will also take into account the information provided by the individual who received the invitation.
      3. Some individuals may be uniquely qualified to give certain talks, such as overviews of activities at more than one laboratory. If, in the opinion of the CSC, less than half of the content of the talk refers directly to CLAS results, the CSC will not be required to select a speaker.
    3. Refereed contributed talks
      1. CLAS Collaboration members who wish to submit an abstract to an international conference or workshop for a refereed contribution will submit a request to the appropriate PWG.
      2. PWG will decide what subjects are appropriate and submit a prioritized list of talks and suggested speakers to the CSC at least 3 weeks before the deadline for the conference or workshop.
      3. The CSC will use these suggestions and the procedure in Section 4 to select speakers.
    4. Non-refereed contributed talks
      1. CLAS Collaboration members who wish to submit abstracts for contributed talks to meetings of scientific organizations and societies (such as, for example, the American Physical Society) should submit a request to the appropriate PWG, providing the intended talk title, abstract, and conclusions.
      2. The PWG will approve or negotiate changes in the abstract with the member, and decide if the member's request is to be granted.
    5. Presentations to the CLAS Collaboration
      1. Initial presentation of approved scientific results will be at a CLAS Collaboration or PWG meeting. The CLAS Collaboration Chair and the PWG Chair will determine whether the presentation is to the PWG or to the entire collaboration, and the form of the presentation.
      2. The CLAS Collaboration Chair, with advice from the CSC, may request a talk be given at a collaboration meeting.
  6. Publication of talks
    1. The CSC will receive for approval all printed versions of talks at least one week before the announced due date for submission for publication.
    2. The CSC has the right to order changes in the content if they are inconsistent with CLAS approved results.
    3. The speaker has right of appeal to the CLAS Coordinating Committee, which has the final decision on the appeal.
    4. The CSC will determine the byline appropriate for the publication.
  7. Archives of delivered talks
    1. The CSC will maintain a library of all printed versions of conference talks.
    2. The CSC will require each PWG to maintain a remotely accessible archive of approved presentations of results that can be used by any member of the collaboration.
      1. Each PWG will decide the mechanism for organizing this archive.
      2. Any usage of these approved results for talks or presentations must carry attribution to the CLAS Collaboration
      3. Access to the archive will be restricted to CLAS Collaboration members.
  8. Appeals The CLAS Coordinating Committee will hear appeals on disagreements with CSC decisions. The decision of the CLAS Coordinating Committee on appeals is final.


D2. Bylaw Governing the Release of CLAS Scientific Results
Prepared by ad-hoc committee on Talks
Barry Ritchie, Chair
Approved by the full membership, October, 1998
  1. Scope of this by-law
    The release of scientific results to the public is governed by the procedures spelled out in this bylaw. This bylaw covers the results to be shown to the public by CLAS members in all cases, and the release of results to other scientists and to the public at large.
  2. Definition of "scientific result"
    The definition of what constitutes a scientific result is of necessity vague. An operational definition may be that a scientific result is any finding, in and of itself, of sufficient interest to warrant public presentation in a seminar, conference, workshop, or publication. All decisions concerning the appropriateness of releasing information should be addressed by discussion in physics working groups if at all possible. The Coordinating Committee is the final arbiter of what constitutes a scientific result for the purposes of this bylaw, and that ruling is binding on collaboration members.
    1. Examples of scientific results that require the use of the procedure outlined in Section 3 include cross sections, polarization observables, identification of new resonances or states, and analyses based on items such as these.
    2. Examples of results that are not considered covered by the procedure in Section 3 include intermediate analysis results that in and of themselves do not permit preliminary or final conclusions to be drawn (e.g.: acceptance calculations, un-normalized invariant mass or missing mass histograms.)
  3. Procedure for release of scientific results
    A scientific result will be approved for public release using the following procedure.
    1. The author(s) of the result will present the result to the appropriate PWG for discussion and critique. This presentation should generally be at a PWG meeting, but the PWG may elect to authorize the review in another manner.
    2. The PWG, upon agreement with the result to be released, will authorize the author(s) of the result to present the results to the full CLAS Collaboration for a period of 30 days for review and comment. The Chair of the PWG will determine the means by which the results are to be presented for review, and will advise the Chair of the Coordinating Committee of that mechanism.
    3. All comment and criticisms should be given to the author(s) in writing, with a copy to the Chair of the CLAS Coordinating Committee.
    4. After the 30-day review period has expired, the Coordinating Committee will decide if the result is acceptable for release. The author(s) of the result will receive comment from the Coordinating Committee on the reasons for its decision.
    5. A PWG may add preliminary results to its archives provided the results are clearly labeled as preliminary. These preliminary results are then available for public presentations using procedures and policies described under other applicable collaboration bylaws. These results need only be considered by the PWG as outlined in step (a) above and do not require steps (b)-(d) above.
    6. Upon release, the PWG will add the results to the working group archive of approved results.
    7. In exceptional cases, the PWG can request that the Coordinating Committee allow immediate release of a scientific result.


E. Analysis of Existing Data: "CLAS Approved Analysis (CAA)"
Procedure for CLAS Members to Undertake New Analyses of Existing CLAS Data.

Approved at the CLAS Collaboration meeting of 10-16-1999
Reinhard Schumacher, Chair

Given that there are reaction channels or observables present in the CLAS data sets which are not covered by any already-approved CLAS experiments, this policy regulates how existing full members of the CLAS Collaboration may gain approval of the whole Collaboration to undertake the relevant analysis.

Since all full members of the CLAS Collaboration have free and equal access to all CLAS data (Charter Section IX), this policy regulates the issue of priority of working on an analysis with a specific stated physics goal. This policy covers work that will NOT be separately presented to a Jefferson Lab PAC.

  1. Each CAA must be approved by the relevant Physics Working Group (PWG) and by the full CLAS collaboration. The PWG will maintain a list of active CAAs.
  2. Proposers must submit a written proposal to the relevant PWG. It must contain
  3. The PWG coordinator will follow the standard methods for evaluation of PAC proposals of that group. There will be an evaluation of the CAA proposal by the PWG followed by a vote. The vote must occur at a publicly announced meeting with this CAA listed on the agenda. The PWG can vote to deny or approve the proposal or request resubmission with specified changes.
  4. After the CAA is approved by the PWG, it will be presented to the full CLAS collaboration at a scheduled collaboration meeting. The collaboration can make it an official CAA with a 2/3 majority of the voting members present. The vote shall be by secret ballot.
  5. The PWG will list all approved CAA's in a publicly accessible place.
  6. The Chairperson of the Coordinating Committee will communicate the roster of approved CLAS analyses to the Chairperson of the PAC to make the PAC cognizant of physics analyses in progress within CLAS which have not been separately presented to the PAC.
  1. Thesis students can be assigned to the analysis, with notice to the Coordinating Committee, just as for any other CLAS PAC-approved experiment.
  2. The proposers (spokespersons) are covered by the same "talks" policy for presentations at workshops and conferences as apply to any PAC-approved CLAS experiment.
  3. The CAA will normally be approved after the first time a run group takes beam. The CAA spokespersons will have no right to specify run conditions (e.g. beam energy, target...) in any future run period.
  4. Progress in a CAA must be reported to the relevant PWG's on a regular basis.

F. Data Calibration and Cooking

Adopted at the June 7, 2001 Business Meeting
R. Schumacher, presiding

I. The responsibility for calibration and cooking of CLAS data rests with the Collaboration as a whole, which includes the Jefferson Lab Hall B staff and all member Universities. Primary responsibility for calibration and cooking of a given data set rests with the Run Group which took the data. Each Run Group shall designate an Analysis Coordinator to expedite the process of calibration, cooking, and analysis. Primary responsibility for providing working software tools for this purpose rests with the Off-line Technical Working Group defined below.

II. Off-line Technical Working Group

  1. Each major software element of the off-line CLAS software (to be listed below) will have a long-term employee of Jefferson Lab or a member University who has the following responsibilities:
    1. Continued improvement and maintenance of the software package.
    2. Ensuring that the software is applied properly to each data set, although the final judgment as to the validity of the output rests with the Run Groups.
    3. Training of new calibrators/cookers who wish to use the CLAS software.
  2. A suitable person is generally NOT a short-term post-doc or graduate student, but rather someone who has a long-term position and who will likely be available for the duration of the CLAS program. Membership of this group can change, but the intention is that each of the senior persons have a long-term commitment to this task.
  3. Each major software element should have both a person with the principal responsibility, but also a vice-principal person to help maintain and improve the codes, documentation, and procedures. These latter persons can be at the level of post-docs and graduate students.
  4. It is NOT the function of the Off-line Technical Working Group to provide the manpower to run the calibration and cooking jobs. The manpower must be provided by the Run Groups.

III. Governance

The Coordinating Committee, the Off-line Technical Working Group, and all the Analysis Coordinators will meet at each Collaboration Meeting. They will discuss progress made in CLAS calibration and cooking. In the event of scarcity of resources such as manpower or computing facilities, it is in this forum that decisions about resource allocations should be made. Service Work commitments of the Universities can and should include providing manpower towards these needs.

G. Review of Proposals and Letters of Intent

Adopted (near unamimous show of hands) at the March 20, 2010 Business Meeting
M. Ripani, presiding

The Charter Section VIII on "Run Time Proposals" does not specify the timing of the preparation of proposals or letters of intent. For effective proposal reviews, the following timeline is established:
  1. The abstract of a new proposal must be communicated to the CLAS Chair at least six (6) weeks prior to the PAC deadline. A draft proposal will be made available to the CLAS chair at least four (4) weeks before the PAC submission deadline. Depending on the nature of a specific proposal (i.e. depending on the subject being within the scope of a single Working Group or not), the CLAS chair will ask one or more Physics Working Group chairs to form a committee that will be charged with reviewing the proposal in detail. The proposal will be made available to the whole Collaboration for comment at this time.
  2. The review committee will have two (2) weeks to make recommendations to the authors on the content of the proposal.
  3. The review committee working with the Coordinating Committee will make a final recommendation on the proposal's endorsement by the Collaboration at least one (1) week before the PAC submission deadline.
  4. The abstract of a Letter of Intent must be communicated to the CLAS chair at least two (2) weeks prior to submission to the PAC in order to inform the Collaboration of what the authors intend to undertake with CLAS. The CLAS chair will inform the Working Groups involved, and if needed will appoint a specific committee to resolve any issue that may arise.


The following text is INOPERATIVE, and included here for historical reference only.

C1. Publication issues brought before the Collaboration Business Meeting on Sept.6,'97
Developed by the Ad-Hoc committee on Publication Policy Review
Hall Crannell, Chair
a. Motion: "All authors of instrument (including software) papers are urged to work with the appropriate working groups to help maintain the very high standards that have already begun to be a CLAS tradition."

APPROVED (formal -- show of hands)

b. Motion: "The Coordinating Committee is directed to take a proactive stance rather than a reactive position with respect to presentations at professional meetings."

APPROVED (consensus -- no objection)

c. Extract from Charter revision proposal:
(For papers recommended for publication by their respective ad-hoc review committees)
"The title, abstract, and proposed list of authors, along with address of a secure FTP site or similar depository where the document can be obtained, will be distributed via Email to each Collaboration Member."

DELETED from the proposal for Charter amendment as too specific for inclusion in that document (accepted as a friendly amendment by the original maker of that motion)

RECOMMENDED as a reasonable procedure that should be considered by the Coordinating Committee in implementing the Charter requirement for access to the text of publications under review. (consensus -- no objection)

d. Motion: B. Ritchie -- second L. Dennis
"To accept the report of the ad-hoc Committee on Publication Policy Review, and recommend that the provisions for Charter Amendment contained therein -- as amended -- be approved for submission to a final vote at the next Collaboration Meeting."

APPROVED (formal -- show of hands)

[Committee Report printed immediately below.]

The following is the text of the Publication Committee report, as amended and endorsed by action of the September 6 meeting. The Charter Amendments mentioned in this document subsequently received formal approval at the Jan'98 Business Meeting, and are now fully incorporated as Article IX of the Charter, so that language is no longer duplicated here. The Preamble to the report, however, is still relevant in its own right because of the strong endorsement that was granted by the meeting to this record of the RATIONALE behind the amendments.


From Members of the CLAS Publication Policy Review Committee: Bill Briscoe Hall Crannell (Chair), Sebastian Kuhn, Mac Mestayer, Jim Mueller, Timothy Smith, Mauro Taiuti

This is the report of the committee established as the result of a motion passed at the CLAS Collaboration meeting of April 30 - May 3, 1997. The charge to this committee was rather broad. The members, listed above, were to review the current policy on publication of papers coming from the CLAS Collaboration, as set forth in the CLAS Charter, and report any recommendations for changes to the membership 30 days prior to the next meeting.

The Committee considered the following questions brought to its attention:

o Are the procedures we now have for publication of physics papers reasonable in the light of five years of experience gained since the Charter was adopted?

o Are all members of the collaboration to be offered the chance to be included as authors on apparatus/instrument papers, or is it clear that these papers are not "physics papers"?

o Should the CLAS Collaboration have input, editorial or otherwise, into apparatus papers? Such a review might help assure that no member who had contributed to the instrument in a significant manner was inadvertently left off, or that data that belongs to the collaboration is correctly represented.

o Should the publications require inclusion of results for in-beam performance wherever possible, and if so, what mechanism should be established to assure that this happens?

o What is the role of senior technicians, engineers, or physicists who are not members of the collaboration in these publications?

After considering these questions and the present Charter, the Committee arrived at the following conclusions:

o Changes to the Charter should be kept to a minimum, since so far the Charter has served us well.

o Instrument papers should not be part of the overall inclusive publication process. However, to continue the overall high quality of the CLAS operation, recommendations as to procedures to be followed for these papers are in order.

o The procedures for managing publications as given in the Charter can and should be stream-lined.

o Some of the concerns presented above can probably be effectively addressed by motions or resolutions rather than by changes to the Charter.

Based on these points, the Committee arrived at a number of suggestions for revision of the portion of the Charter concerning publication (Section XI). These suggested changes were formally presented at the CLAS Collaboration meeting on September 6,'97 and, after some editing in response to suggestions from the floor, were approved for presentation as formal amendments to the Charter at the next collaboration meeting on Jan 10,'98 -- at which they were unanimously approved.


F. Technical Committee
At the Jan 10 ,'98 Business Meeting
During a wide-ranging discussion of ways to improve coordination of efforts between run periods, it was proposed that a new Technical Committee should be formed -- to consist of ONE representative from each technical working group AND online software -- and that regular meetings of this group should now take the place of the "installation committee" meetings as we move on from initial installation to long term upkeep.

Strongly approved -- sense of meeting

It might be noted that this is now the third stage in evolution of the initial concept of the Technical Committee defined in the Charter (Article V.D.), as the project has moved on from design, thru installation, to calibration & maintenance. The need for flexibility of this sort was forseen in the original Charter language, which provides (IV.B) that changes in number and composition of Technical Groups may take place at any time, at the discretion of the Coordinating Committee, without any need for formal Charter amendment.