[Clascomment] OPT-IN: Transverse Polarization of Sigma+(1189) in Photoproduction on a Hydrogen Target

[Chandra Nepali]

Hello Reinhard,

Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. We will work on this.

Chandra


On 12/21/2012 05:23 PM, Reinhard Schumacher wrote:
>                                                        12-21-12
> Hello Chandra and Moskov,
>
> I read your paper on "Transverse Polarization....in CLAS" dated
> 12-18-12, and I have a few suggestions and corrections.  Overall, it
> is nice to see that you have some useful new polarization measurements
> to publish, ones that are sure to arose interest because the results
> are somewhat surprising.
>
> page 1 col 1, line 10:  here you refer to a group of references
> numbered 3 to 7.  They are not all correct or appropriate.  As long as
> you are citing the "main results" obtained in these reactions, you
> should use
>
> Ref (suggested order)
> 3  this one is OK
> 4  not sure why this is included,  It's not a real paper
> 5  OK
> 6  OK
> 7  OK
> 8  Add reference to CLAS Bradford 2006 paper
> 9  Add reference to CLAS Bradford 2007 paper
> 10 Add reference to CLAS McCracken paper
> 11 The Dey paper which is Ref 10 right now should definitely be in
> this group
>
> page 1, col 1, paragraph 2:  Twice you cite Refs 5 and 10, but here
> you really need to also cite the McCracken paper.
>
> Page 1 bottom of page:  I would make Moskov the email contact, since
> his address at ODU is likely to endure longer than Chandra's.
>
> page 2 end of first long paragraph where momentum and eloss
> corrections are mentioned.  There are CLAS Notes by Williams and by
> Pasyuk that should be cited to give credit to the people who came up
> with these corrections.
>
> Figure 4:  The caption is way to verbose.  A caption should ONLY tell
> the reader what is shown in the figure, and all  the other information
> should be folded into the main text.  
>
> page 3 col 2, near bottom:  you use "i. e." here and elsewhere, which
> is OK, but use "{\it i.e.}$ with no space after the first period.
>
> page 4 near top:  "Therefore, the effectS due..."  add the "S".  Then,
> later in the sentence, what "false asymmetry" are you talking about
> here.  Unclear.
>
> page 4, col 1, para 3:  use "...conserves parity."  get rid of
> definite article "THE"
>
> page 4, Eq. 4:  this equation is wrong.  Take the cross product of
> these two unit vectors and you don't get another unit vector.  Just
> divide by the magnitude.
>
> page 4, before Eq 7:  you don't need this raft of five references to
> justify the formula.  Pick one.  Anyway, any textbook on the subject
> would be sufficient.
>
> page 5, col 2, bullet point:  it makes little sense to quote a PERCENT
> error on a polarization.  What if the polarization turned out to be
> zero in some bin.  Would you then claim the error is 0% of zero, and
> therefore vanishingly small?  No.  You should give the systematic
> error as and absolute number.  If I understand what you did, using a
> 100% polarized Monte Carlo sample, you might say the systematic
> uncertainty is +-0.05.
>
>
> That is all for now.  Good luck with the paper.
>
> Reinhard
>
>