[Clas12_verystrange] review comments

Tue Apr 24 09:23:36 EDT 2012

Hi, Igor,

Looks like we have some work to do.

Below is the comments from the reviewer. My jlab account is suspended. I don't know if our mailing list accepts my fiu email. If not, could you forward this out?

Thanks!

Lei

Begin forwarded message:

From: Keith Griffioen <griff at jlab.org<mailto:griff at jlab.org>>
Date: April 24, 2012 6:01:46 AM EDT
To: "Hicks, Kenneth" <hicks at ohio.edu<mailto:hicks at ohio.edu>>
Cc: Keith Griffioen <griff at jlab.org<mailto:griff at jlab.org>>, "Marco Battaglieri (battaglieri at ge.infn.it<mailto:battaglieri at ge.infn.it>)" <battaglieri at ge.infn.it<mailto:battaglieri at ge.infn.it>>, "Lei Guo (lguo at jlab.org<mailto:lguo at jlab.org>)" <lguo at jlab.org<mailto:lguo at jlab.org>>
Subject: Re: proposal

Hi Everyone,

Here are some comments on the proposal,  "Photoproduction of the Very Strangest Baryons on the Proton Target in CLAS12"

Generally, I think the proposed experiment is interesting, relevant and doable.  It would be a real shame not to use already allocated beam time to study the multiply-strange resonances using CLAS12.

The proposal, however, could use some polishing.  This is important for two reasons: 1) the easier it is for the PAC to understand, the better the proposal will fare, and 2) the proposal will become a decade-long reference for a wide community, so it should be written very well.

I didn't start out to make editorial corrections, but I did note some things.  Please see:
http://www.jlab.org/Hall-B/secure/clas12/griff/Strangest.pdf

The Abstract, Introduction and Physics Motivation were meandering and repetitive.  I often felt I was reading certain statements again and again.  The proposal would be better served if all of this were tighter, more concise, and to the point.

As to the organizational structure, I would eliminate all subsections in italics indicated by an arabic numeral.  Roman numeral and Roman lettered sections are fine, but the italicized subsections are infrequent, sporadic, and consequently confusing.  Then I would make more logical divisions:

(subject headings below are just my abbreviations)
Abstract:  Be more specific and more precise.  What do you plan to measure?  How?  With what precision.  Save the "Almost half a century" and "unique lens" stuff for the introduction.
I. Introduction
II. Physics Motivation
A. Search for Omega
B. Missing Cascades
C. Cascade Polarization
D. Elastic Scattering
III. Cross Section Models
A. VMD
B. Effective Lag. 1
C. Effective Lag. 2
(kill the summary)
IV. Cross Section Estimates
A. Xi
B. Omega
V. Specialized Detector Components
A. Forward Tagger
B. Calorimeter
C. Hodo
D. FT-TRACK
E. Trigger
F. Status
VI. CLAS12 Measurement
A. Omega Production and Final States
B. Xi production and Final States
C. Spin and Parity
V. Beam-Time Request
(kill the summary)

You go through nice MC simulations and show how you can get virtually background-free distributions in Fig. 24.  During the last collaboration meeting this point was lost on some of the most knowledgeable physicists in the audience.  You need to make sure this doesn't happen with the proposal as well.  If there is one figure the PAC is to understand, which is it?  I would think Fig. 24, but then you need to make very sure that all of your text points to this and makes sure the reader understands it perfectly.

I find that the proposal is missing the final step that shows what you expect to measure.  You've simulated things well, you've estimated production cross sections, etc., but you show no plots with expected error bars for any of the things you really want to know.  Where is the plot that shows simulated measured data points for Omega photoproduction as a function of photon energy?  Where is the equivalent plot for the Cascades?  Where is your simulated Fig. 25 (bottom) plot for the resonances you will  determine the spin and parity for?  What is the simulation of the plots you would put into the PRL article you write after analyzing these data?  How do your expected results compare to what Hall D might produce?
Can you put simulated CLAS12 data on Figure 21?  What about on Figure 20?  Can you put CLAS12 simulated data on Figure 19 as well?  This would show how much better 12 GeV is than what was possible with CLAS.

In the end, you have no figures that in one powerpoint slide would summarize what you will measure and how it compares to previous knowledge.  It would be very helpful for you to have such.

Best wishes,
Keith

---------------------------------------
Keith Griffioen
Professor of Physics
College of William & Mary
(757) 221-3537
griff at physics.wm.edu<mailto:griff at physics.wm.edu>
---------------------------------------

On Apr 10, 2012, at 11:32 AM, Hicks, Kenneth wrote:

Hi Keith and Marco,

Attached is the proposal which is ready for your review.  I’m cc’ing this message to Lei Guo, who is the contact person for any questions.  Thanks for your help!

Please finish the review by May 4.  Since the authors will need time to respond to your suggestions, I hope you can have a first round of comments by April 20.

Best regards,

Ken

From: Lei Guo [mailto:lguo at jlab.org]
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2012 8:33 PM
To: Hicks, Kenneth
Subject: proposal

Hi, Ken,

Attached is the our proposals. Please let me know if any more information is needed.

Thanks!

Lei

Begin forwarded message:

From: Lei Guo <leguo at fiu.edu>

Date: April 6, 2012 6:09:06 PM EDT

To: Lei Guo <lguo at jlab.org>

Subject: proposal

<Strangest_01.pdf>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/clas12_verystrange/attachments/20120424/dc3c6d86/attachment-0002.html>