Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (386)
- Preprint (263)
- Book (1)
- Part of Periodical (1)
- Working Paper (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (652)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (652)
Keywords
- BESIII (19)
- e +-e − Experiments (16)
- Branching fraction (12)
- Particle and Resonance Production (8)
- Quarkonium (8)
- LHC (7)
- Charm Physics (6)
- Spectroscopy (6)
- Hadronic decays (5)
- Heavy-ion collisions (5)
Institute
The elliptic flow (v2) of (anti-)3He is measured in Pb–Pb collisions at √sNN=5.02TeV in the transverse-momentum (pT) range of 2–6 GeV/c for the centrality classes 0–20%, 20–40%, and 40–60% using the event-plane method. This measurement is compared to that of pions, kaons, and protons at the same center-of-mass energy. A clear mass ordering is observed at low pT, as expected from relativistic hydrodynamics. The violation of the scaling of v2 with the number of constituent quarks at low pT, already observed for identified hadrons and deuterons at LHC energies, is confirmed also for (anti-)3He. The elliptic flow of (anti-)3He is underestimated by the Blast-Wave model and overestimated by a simple coalescence approach based on nucleon scaling. The elliptic flow of (anti-)3He measured in the centrality classes 0–20% and 20–40% is well described by a more sophisticated coalescence model where the phase-space distributions of protons and neutrons are generated using the iEBE-VISHNU hybrid model with AMPT initial conditions.
Peer review of research articles is a core part of our scholarly communication system. In spite of its importance, the status and purpose of peer review is often contested. What is its role in our modern digital research and communications infrastructure? Does it perform to the high standards with which it is generally regarded? Studies of peer review have shown that it is prone to bias and abuse in numerous dimensions, frequently unreliable, and can fail to detect even fraudulent research. With the advent of Web technologies, we are now witnessing a phase of innovation and experimentation in our approaches to peer review. These developments prompted us to examine emerging models of peer review from a range of disciplines and venues, and to ask how they might address some of the issues with our current systems of peer review. We examine the functionality of a range of social Web platforms, and compare these with the traits underlying a viable peer review system: quality control, quantified performance metrics as engagement incentives, and certification and reputation. Ideally, any new systems will demonstrate that they out-perform current models while avoiding as many of the biases of existing systems as possible. We conclude that there is considerable scope for new peer review initiatives to be developed, each with their own potential issues and advantages. We also propose a novel hybrid platform model that, at least partially, resolves many of the technical and social issues associated with peer review, and can potentially disrupt the entire scholarly communication system. Success for any such development relies on reaching a critical threshold of research community engagement with both the process and the platform, and therefore cannot be achieved without a significant change of incentives in research environments.