[A1n_d2n] Fwd: [EXTERNAL] Fw: Your_manuscript LY18265 Nycz

[mnycz]

Dear Collaborators,
I wanted to give an update on the status of the manuscript which was 
recently submitted to PRL, Quasielastic Asymmetry in the Threshold 
Region. Unfortunately, our submission was not accepted for publication 
by PRL, please see email forwarded below. A few of us discussed this 
today about how to move forward. One main point that should have been 
emphasized is that our measurement is with the target spin longitudinal, 
while one of the previous experiment (JLab E95-001) is with the target 
spin transverse to the q vector. As such, our asymmetry is sensitive to 
both T’ and LT’ components of the 3He response functions, while E95-001 
was for A_T’ only.
If you have any suggestions or comments, please send them along. We are 
currently working on addressing the comments which can improve the paper 
as well as evaluating possible journals to submit to in the future. 
Thank you.
Best Regards,
Michael Nycz

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fw: Your_manuscript LY18265 Nycz
Date: 2025-01-28 16:04
 From: "Nycz, Michael Robert (dfe3ks)" <dfe3ks at virginia.edu>
To: "mnycz at jlab.org" <mnycz at jlab.org>

Re: LY18265
     Quasielastic  3 vec He( vec e,e') asymmetry in the threshold region
     by M. Nycz, W. Armstrong, T. Averett, et al.

Dear Dr. Nycz,

The above manuscript has been reviewed by our referees.

On the basis of the resulting reports, it is our judgment that the
paper is unsuitable for publication in Physical Review Letters. We
append comments from the criticism that led to our decision.

Yours sincerely,

Kevin Dusling, Ph.D. (he/him/his)
Senior Associate Editor
Physical Review Letters
Email: prl at aps.org
https://journals.aps.org/prl/ [1]
Follow us on X: @PhysRevLett

NEWS FROM THE PHYSICAL REVIEW JOURNALS

PRL now publishes End Matter
https://go.aps.org/endmatter [2]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Report of Referee A -- LY18265/Nycz
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This paper is very well written. The description of the physics
motivation, experiment and analysis is accessible and clear, but also
concise. The references are complete and allow for a deeper dive into
the details. The experimental setup and analysis are standard and seem
appropriate. The innovation comes in pushing the reconstruction down
to low momentum transfers and into the threshold region.

While It is clear this data is new and important for shedding light on
the robustness of PWIA and Faddeev theoretical frameworks, it isn't
clear how the comparisons of the theory and data change or enhance our
physical picture of He3. The first issue is that there are no error
bars on the theoretical curves so it isn't clear how to interpret the
deviations between the two theories or the theory and the data. Even
if we assume the differences are significant, the reader is left to
form their own conclusions about why one theory matches better and
what the differences between PWIA and Faddeev mean. It is not
surprising the Faddeev provides a better description as the excitation
energy is decreased and 3NF effects play a larger role. When does the
onset of these differences become significant (again need error bars)
and does the value they become significant tell us something physical?
Perhaps it is not possible to make these sorts of conclusions, or to
disentangle MEC, FSI and 3NF effects. But I think the conclusions need
to be broader and stronger in order to rise to the level of a PRL.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Report of Referee B -- LY18265/Nycz
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I do not find this manuscript appropriate for PRL.

Its main conclusion is that Fadeev calculations (with treatment of
FSI, inclusion of modern NN potentials and MEC) represent the double
spin asymmetry data, an improvement when compared to PWIA
calculations.

This is hardly earthshaking as the authors confirm themselves, while
not pointing out that this report is nearly identical to that in Ref.
11: F. Xiong et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 242501 (2001)

The first Ref.[11] was done in Hall A and this one in Hall C.

I do not see how the community benefits by the publication of reports
on two "identical" experiments: same reaction, same technique, same
calculations, same Q^2 of 0.1. and 0.2.