[Bonuslist] Fwd: Your_manuscript LK13027 Baillie

[Keith Griffioen]

Dear Bonusites,

Just in time for the weekend, here are some things to stew over.

Ref 1 complains that we couldn't possibly fit a proper discussion into  
PRL length, so this paper should go to PRC.  Ref 1 then complains  
about how we don't understand final state interactions.  I think these  
things are addressable within the PRL format by mentioning Slava's  
work which gives us confidence that FSIs are not large.  We can also  
reference the DEEPS work that again shows FSIs are under control at  
backward angles.

Ref 2 strongly urges that our paper be published in PRL.  This is very  
good.  Ref 2's suggestions will not be too hard to implement.

I suggest that we make revisions and resubmit to PRL.  Please let me  
know what you think.  I can start to make the revisions requested  
below next week if you all agree that we should go back to PRL.

Note also that one ref complains that the data are not in the database  
as advertised ;-)

Schönes Wochenende
Keith


Begin forwarded message:

> From: prl at aps.org
> Date: November 17, 2011 5:23:46 PM GMT+01:00
> To: griff at physics.wm.edu
> Subject: Your_manuscript LK13027 Baillie
> Reply-To: prl at aps.org
>
> Re: LK13027
>    Measurement of the neutron F 2 structure function via spectator
>    tagging with CLAS
>    by N. Baillie, S. Tkachenko, J. Zhang, et al.
>
> Dear Dr. Griffioen,
>
> The above manuscript has been reviewed by our referees.  We ask you
> to consider the appended comments from the reports.
>
> While we cannot make a definite commitment, the probable course of
> action if you choose to resubmit is indicated below.
>
> ( ) Acceptance, if the editors can judge that all or most of the
>    criticism has been met.
>
> (x) Return to the previous referee(s) for review if available.
>
> (x) Submittal to new referee(s) for review.
>
> With any resubmittal, please include a summary of changes made
> and a brief response to all recommendations and criticisms.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> Abhishek Agarwal
> Assistant Editor
> Physical Review Letters
> The premier APS journal for current research
> Email: prl at ridge.aps.org
> Fax: 631-591-4141
> http://prl.aps.org/
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Report of Referee A -- LK13027/Baillie
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> This paper is the CLAS Collaboration result for the neutron F2
> structure function determination. It is definitely interesting results
> but the PRL space is not enough to spell all details out. It should be
> published in PRC, after the authors have addressed the comments below.
>
> Overall, the authors have to consider final-state interactions (FSI)
> more seriously (Fermi smearing is a small fraction of FSI). The
> critical thing is that the authors assume that FSI for this experiment
> is very small. Unfortunately, nobody did FSI calculations exactly.
> There are some estimations [12-15] only. The well known fact is that
> for Ps > 100 MeV/c, impulse approximation (IA) does not work.
>
> 1) Abstract, line 3: '100 MeV' ==> '100 MeV/c'
>
> 2) Abstract, line 5: What 'nucleon resonance' means? Any specific
> resonance(s)?
>
> 3) Abstract, line 6: 'x' ==> 'Bjorken x'
>
> 4) Abstract, line 8: The authors have to take out 'essentially free of
> nuclear corrections'. It is hard to prove it. The authors use some
> theoretical assumptions which do not allow to make a solid case.
>
> 5) pg 2, left, para 1, line 3: The authors have to take out 'and quark
> confinement...' It is very hard to prove it. If the authors know any
> good publication(s) then they have to put appropriate ref(s) in the
> text or take this statement out.
>
> 6) pg 2, left, para 1, line 5: What facilities - electromagnetic,
> hadronic, or both?
>
> 7) pg 2, left, para 1, line 9: Term 'strong' is too emotional. The
> authors have to take it out.
>
> 8) pg 2, right, para 1, line 9: '...resonant and non-resonant
> contributions...' I am afraid but I am not able to agree with the
> authors. It is unclear to me how they may prove it specifically how
> they may determine a partial-wave decomposition. Definitely this
> statement requires a clarification and/or good reference. Or they can
> take it out.
>
> 9) pg 2, right, end of 2nd para: As I said above, 100 MeV/c is too
> large to use IA and Fermi smearing is a small fraction of FSI.
>
> 10) pg 3, left, para 3, line 2: Term 'all spectator momenta' is
> unclear here. The authors know nothing about regime where Ps < 100
> MeV/c.
>
> 11) pg 3, left, para 3, line 11: '~< 5%'. That is a model dependent
> upper limit. It is unclear how it works for this CLAS experiment.
>
> 12) pg 3, right, para 1, line 6: '~< 1%'. See above 11).
>
> 13) pg 3, right, para 4, line 4: Please clarify what 'y' means.
>
> 14) pg 3, right, para 4, line 8: '70 MeV' ==> '70 MeV/c'
>
> 15) pg 3, right, para 4, line 10: '100 MeV' ==> '100 MeV/c'
>
> 16) pg 3, right, para 4, bottom line: Term 'very-important proton'
> sounds very controversial. The authors have to find more appropriate
> term.
>
> 17) pg 4, left, Fig Caption 1, line 5: 'Integrated yields are...'
> Integrated over what W or W*? And what range? It is unclear what is
> the difference between W and W*.
>
> 18) pg 4, left, Fig Caption 1, line 7: It is unclear how the authors
> know CLAS acceptance. Any appropriate reference will help.
>
> 19) pg 4, left, para 1, line 2: What term 'usual' means here?
>
> 20) pg 4, left, para 1, line 5: I can see some inconsistency here. The
> authors claim that FSI is small for this experiment. If that is the
> case, then I cannot understand why the authors are paying attention on
> the small factor as Fermi smearing does.
>
> 21) pg 4, left, para 1, bottom line: If CLAS measured that effect then
> the authors have to provide an appropriate ref.
>
> 22) pg 4, right, para 2, line 11: The authors have to spell out this
> abbreviation 'CJ'.
>
> 23) pg 4, right, para 2, lines 23 & 26: It is unclear how authors made
> estimation of systematic uncertainties. They have to spell all out.
>
> 24) pg 5, left, Fig Caption 2: It looks that Ref [22] is very critical
> for the interpretation of the data. The authors have to spell out what
> is this model about. Additionally, the authors have to clarify what
> structures on Fig 2 mean.
>
> 25) pg 5, left, para 1, line 12: I cannot accept the author's argument
> for 'F15'. It is too weak. They have to prove it if they are willing
> to keep it in the text.
>
> 26) pg 5, right, Fig Caption 3, line 12: It is unclear term 'global
> fit'. The authors have to spell it out.
>
> 27) Ref [24]: The status current database is unclear - did the authors
> put data in the CLAS database or not.
>
> 28) Ref [25]: The authors have to add a title of this JLab proposal.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Report of Referee B -- LK13027/Baillie
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The manuscript reports the first direct measurement of the neutron
> structure function F2n by using deep inelastic electron scattering on
> the deuteron in coincidence with a slow backward recoiling proton. For
> the kinematics of the detected recoils, the corrections due to nuclear
> and off-shell effects are estimated by several different theory groups
> to be quite small. This method is not only a very important crosscheck
> of extractions from inclusive DIS on the deuteron, but likely the only
> means of determining F2n at high x, where other methods are subject to
> large model uncertainties from binding effects and final state
> interactions. These results will likely be of wide interest to those
> who study the patron structure of the nucleon.
>
> In addition, as is well known, our limited knowledge of the high x
> behavior of the structure function of both the proton and neutron
> causes a significant uncertainty in other high energy experiments, in
> particular, those at the LHC. Given the importance of the result and
> the likely wide interest, I strongly support the publication of the
> manuscript in PRL.
>
> Overall, I found the manuscript well-written and clear. I do have some
> suggestions/recommendations for the text.
>
> 1) Throughout the paper, momenta are given units of MeV or GeV, rather
> than MeV/c and GeV/c. I think this is sloppy. It is particularly
> important since these are very low momentum recoil protons in which
> the kinetic energy and momentum are very different.
>
> 2) I think it would be useful to quote the angular acceptance (say
> azimuthal by polar) of the BoNuS detector in order to have a feel for
> the scope of the measurement.
>
> 3) Although I understand that space is limited, it seems odd that
> there is no discussion of the physics interpretation of the results in
> Fig 3 in terms of the x->1 ratio, and also, although Bloom-Gilman
> duality is mentioned in the introduction, and we are given W* spectra,
> there is no mention of whether these results exhibit the duality.
> Presumably a second manuscript is in preparation which discusses this,
> but if so, I would shorten the discussion of duality in the intro, and
> then leave the summary comment that these data will be useful for
> duality studies, to appear in a future publication. It would also be
> interesting to know (without having to look up the reference) whether
> the phenomenological fit that the W* spectra are compared to uses
> duality to fit data which are not in the canonical DIS kinematic
> regime.
>
> 4) While colors depend strongly on the printer/monitor, I note that in
> Fig 2, the magenta points were almost impossible to see from my color
> printed manuscript and perhaps they should be made darker or a
> different color chosen.
>