[Clascomment] OPT-IN: Subthreshold photoproduction of phi mesons from deuterium

[Stepan Stepanyan]

On 10/18/10 11:43 AM, Haiyan Gao wrote:
>
> Dear Daniel,
>
> Thank you for your careful reading of the manuscript and helpful 
> comments. We will revise the paper accordingly. The target journal for 
> this paper is NOT PRL. We intend to try PLB.
>
> Best regards, Haiyan
>
>
>
> ========================================================================
>   Prof. Haiyan Gao
>   Department of Physics and TUNL
>   Duke University
>   2313 French Family Science Center
>   Phone: (919)-660-2622  (919)681-1935 (fax)
>   gao at tunl.duke.edu http://www.tunl.duke.edu/~mep
> =========================================================================
>
>
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, Daniel Carman wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>                         October 18, 2010
>>
>>
>> Xi and Haiyan et al,
>>
>> I have read through the latest draft of your phi meson paper. I have
>> a few comments that I pass along below. Let me know if you have any
>> questions or need any clarification. I am assuming that you intend
>> to submit this for publication in PRL. Given the very modest result with
>> no real interpretation, I would strongly bet that it will be rejected.
>>
>>
>>                       Regards,
>>
>>                       Daniel
>>
>> ************************************************************************* 
>>
>> Page 2.
>>  Abstract.
>>    Line 2. Use \"tagged-photon beam\".
>>    Line 6. Use \"... predictions based on a quasifree mechanism.\".
>>  Left Column.
>>    Paragraph 1.
>>      Line 3. Use \".. between two interacting ...\".
>>    Paragraph 2.
>>      Line 13. Use \"... magnitudes of the $K^+$, $K^-$, and $p$, 
>> which ...
>>      Line 13. You never state what this total momentum cut is. Seems 
>> like
>>        this would be appropriate.
>>      Line 14. You mention the simulation studies, but it is not clear 
>> what
>>        studies you are talking about. I would suggest something like
>>        \"... is confirmed by our detailed simulation studies (discussed
>>         below).\" to put this in better/more complete context.
>>      Line 15. Use \"... is less than that from backgroun ... for 
>> example,
>>        subthreshold/near-threshold $\\phi$ ...\".
>>  Right Column.
>>    Paragraph 1.
>>      Line 1. Use \"... of a bound state and direct $K^+K^-$ 
>> production ...\".
>>      Line 2. Use \"... and as such, it allows for ...
>>    Paragraph 2.
>>      Line 5. The sentence beginning \"The reconstructed $\\phi$ event
>>        originated from photoproduction ...\" reads quite awkwardly. It
>>        sounds like you are saying that the associated high-momentum
>>        proton was reconstructed only because you required a triple
>>        concidence and because the detector is not perfect in its
>>        coverage. Both of these statements don\'t make full sense.
>>    Paragraph 3.
>>      Line 2. Remove the sentence containing the reference to the Theta+
>>        It is not necessary to mention and cite anything to do with that
>>        work here. It is distracting and irrelevant for this work.
>>      Line 8. Use \"... photon-tagging system ...\".
>>
>> Page 3.
>>  Table II caption.
>>    Line 1. Use \"A comparison of the g10 and g11 ...\".
>>    Line 2. Use \"... is for the $E_\\gamma$ range of ...\".
>>    Line 3. Use \"... the target center of the g11 ...\".
>>    Line 4. Use \"... upstream from the nominal center ...\".
>>  Left Column.
>>    Paragraph 1.
>>      Line 6. Use \"... period for calibration purposes.\".
>>      Line 7. The sentence beginning \"This finding is consistent 
>> ...\" is
>>        quite awkward. You are trying to say that you also looked in a
>>        much higher statistics data set in the same photon energy bin
>>        and saw no strong phi peak. But g11 is mentioned without any
>>        introduction. You mention nothing about the relative sizes of
>>        the g10 vs. g11 hydrogen data sets and provide no information
>>        that allows me to understand how Fig. 1 right came about.
>>     Line 11. Use \"... data set, where the $\\phi$ peak ...\".
>>     Line 12. Use \"... panel) is the corresponding spectrum from the 
>> g11 ...\".
>>     Line 14. I have no idea what you are getting at or implying with the
>>       sentence \"The difference in the acceptance between the g10 and 
>> g11
>>       ...\". Is this an affect that I need to consider as important to
>>       appreciate what you are showing here?
>>     Line 15. Use \"... the g10 and g11 data sets has not been ...\".
>>     Line 19. You discussion on relative acceptances in terms of magnetic
>>       field and target position is very hand-waving and qualitative. 
>> Without
>>       some quantitative perspective, it provides nothing of real value.
>>     Line 23. The sentence beginning \"The g11 yield from hydrogen 
>> around ...\"
>>       is not a proper sentence. Please review.
>>     Line 28. Use \"... kinematic settings of g10 and g11.\".
>>   Paragraph 2.
>>     Line 6. You allude to the experimental resolution but never give a
>>       value. You should state it here explicitly.
>>  Right Column.
>>    Fig. 1 caption. The statement \"The unit is number of events ...\" is
>>      awkward. I suggest that you provide a y-axis label with 
>> events/2.5 MeV.
>>    Paragraph 1.
>>      Line 2 after Eq. 1. Use \"Such a fit was ...\".
>>    Paragraph 2.
>>      Line 18. Use units with c=1 here for consistency throughout this
>>        paper.
>>
>> Page 4.
>>  Left Column.
>>    Fig. 2 caption.
>>      Line 3. Use \"$\\phi-N$\".
>>    Paragraph 1.
>>      Line 2. Use \"... which is the four-momentum ...\".
>>      Line 6. What was incident beam energy for g11? I don\'t know what
>>       the \"g11 kinematic region\" is based on what has been written 
>> here.
>>      Line 16. Use \"$N-N$\".
>>    Paragraph 2.
>>      Line 1. Use \"... as input to the ...\".
>>  Right Column.
>>    Paragraph 1.
>>      Line 15. Use \"... and the $\\phi-N$ FSI ...\".
>>      Line 21. Provide a reference to the input cross section model.
>>      Line 25. You state a maximum sys. uncertainty of 44%. However,
>>        according to Table 2, it is 32%. Please check.
>>
>> Page 5.
>>  Left Column.
>>    Paragraph 1.
>>      Line 1. The discussion of the QF calculation is too scant to know
>>        what to make of it. Therefore I don\'t know what to make of the
>>        curve provided in Fig. 3 or the ensuing discussion here.
>>      Line 3. Use \"... calculation is based on ...\".
>>      Line 7. Use \"... in the MC\".
>>    Paragraph 2.
>>      Line 3. Here you use the words \"below the production 
>> threshold\". I
>>        assume that this is a remnant from your last draft. The title is
>>        near threshold, not subthreshold. Please review.
>>      Line 4. Use \"... for protons accessible ...\".
>>      Line 6. Use \"... for protons.\".
>>  Right Column.
>>    Ref. [8]. Journal name is in italics.
>>    Ref. [14]. Not cited in this work.
>>
>>