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

[Stepan Stepanyan]

  Dear Reinhard,

Thank you for your careful reading and helpful comments of the revised
manuscript. I apologize for my belated response - I spent two days traveling
and just arrived in Beijing last night.

Since I cannot seem to be able to send email to CLAS lists directly - I am
copying Stepan to this email who will forward the response to the entire
collaboration.

You are right - it was our oversight not to list our communications with both
the analysis committee and later with the ad hoc committee. Now they are
and hopefully they address your questions concerning changes in results and
theory curves.

Please take a look at the following report we prepared following our phone
meeting with the analysis review committee,
http://www.jlab.org/Hall-B/secure/hadron/analysis_reviews/g10-phiN/appendix_08_26_10.pdf
and the approval report by the analysis committee:
http://www.jlab.org/Hall-B/secure/hadron/analysis_reviews/g10-phiN/phi_review_haiyan.pdf

Also, final reports by the ad hoc committee is located at:
http://www.jlab.org/Hall-B/secure/hadron/analysis_reviews/g10-phiN/adhoc.txt
http://www.jlab.org/Hall-B/secure/hadron/analysis_reviews/g10-phiN/ad-hoc-phi.pdf

Daniel Carman went through the entire paper carefully and hopefully in the
revised version we have taken into account most of the grammatical errors
if not all.
http://www.jlab.org/Hall-B/secure/hadron/analysis_reviews/g10-phiN/g10_subthreshold_10_22_10.pdf
We will go over the paper carefully in our final revision to take into account
the rest of your comments shortly.

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 Thu, 21 Oct 2010, Reinhard Schumacher wrote:

>
>                                                  10-21-10
>  Dear Xi and Haiyan et al,
>
>  Your revised paper \"Naer-threshold....Deuterium\" is a great
>  improvement over the previous draft from last spring.  It is much more
>  focused on what you have done as experimentalists, and presents the
>  results in a reasonable framework without exaggerations.  Also, I like
>  that you are more accurate with language, such as retitling the paper
>  \"Near-threshold\" instead of \"Subthreshold\", for example.
>
>  My main new complaint is that the cross section results (Figure 3) are
>  nearly a factor of 2 bigger than in the previous version of this paper
>  (Figure 4). Wow, what happened!?  Why should I believe this result
>  more than the previous result?  Where is the technical discussion
>  between you and the review committee documented?  I tried to find it
>  on the analysis page you have, but I was unable to find a discussion
>  of specifically this point.  There was mention of a \"bin centering
>  correction\", but not something about the size of the cross section (at
>  least not that I could find).  Also, the theory curve is totally
>  different.  What caused that?
>
>  Other comments:
>
>  page 2, column 2, 2nd paragraph, line 6: \"The reconstructed phi...\"
>  this sentence makes no sense: the first and second halves are
>  inconsistent.  The phrase \"due to\" implies some logical connection,
>  but this is not made clear.
>
>  page 3, column 1, lines 5 and 8 and many others: Perhaps think about
>  some alternative to referring over and over again to g10 and g11.
>  These are our jargon words for describing our data sets, but the
>  general reader does not appreciate them.  I would try to come up with
>  another way to convey the same concepts.  Perhaps \"deuteron data set\"
>  and \"proton data set\".  Be sure you explain that we *have* a proton
>  data set before springing the phrase \"g11\" on the reader.
>
>  Also, you have grammar problems throughout the paper.  One example
>  starts on line 5 \"...which was taken during the g10 running period for
>  (NO THE) calibration purpose(S plural).\"  Another example in in the
>  next column line 5: \"Such A fit was performed...\"  I see you have at
>  least two native English speaking lead authors.  I recommend letting
>  them have a go at the grammar.
>
>  page 3, column 2 bottom: as with the previous draft, I think it is
>  distracting to the reader in introduce Equation 2, describe its
>  parameters, but then not use any of this information later in the
>  paper.  If I am an outside reader of your paper, and you make me
>  absorb this formula, then I expect to see you use it in some way that
>  compellingly supports your final physics result.  Since you are not
>  showing the proton cross sections or your fits to them, I don\'t want
>  to be bothered with this level of aimless detail.  You could just as
>  well leave out this material.
>
>  Again, the paper is much much better than before.  Please consider my
>  remaining comments as you finalize this work.
>
>  Sincerely,
>  Reinhard.
>