[Clascomment] OPT-IN:Differential Photoproduction Cross Sections for the Sigma0(1385), Lambda(1405), and Lambda(1520)

[Daniel Carman]

						May 4, 2013


Dear Kei and Reinhard,

I have read through your paper on the hyperon cross section measurements in photoproduction 
and my comments are included below. In general this is a well written paper that is clearly 
presented. I include all of my comments below based on the paper draft dated Apr. 30. If you 
have any questions, let me know.

				Regards,

				  Daniel

********************************************************************
Page 1.
 Title. No period at the end of the title.

Page 2.
 Line 60. Use "LEPS Collaboration".

Page 3.
 Line 160. The sentence beginning "They concluded that the contact term ..." ends
   very awkwardly. The part "though the $K^*$ only at SLAC energies" seems like an
   incomplete thought. Are you trying to say that at lower energies both the K and
   K* exchanges are significant and that at higher energies only the K* exchange
   is significant? 

Page 4.
 Line 216. I suggest "... Accelerator Facility, during May and June ...".
 Line 244. Add a space before "were again in the ...".

Page 6.
 Fig. 2 caption. The first line says "Fit result to ... before MC iteration." Then
   subfigure (a) is labeled as initial fit and (b) is labeled as after two iterations.
   Something doesn't make sense here.

Page 7.
 Table I. The text states that the normalization is the dominant contribution to the
   systematics as 7.3%. However, the table shows that the C.L. cut has a contribution as
   high as 12%. This contribution is never discussed. Also how can the total systematic
   be listed as 11.6% when three of the contributions have a range of values (presumably
   kinematics dependent). Shouldn't the final systematic have a range as well?

Page 8.
 Fig. 3 caption. The second line says the error bars are "combined statistical and
   fit uncertainties". It is not clear to me what this means. Is the total total
   uncertainty including both statistical and systematic uncertainties? What is included
   here?

Page 9.
 Fig. 4 caption. I suggest "Some of the nine curves (see text for details) lie on ...".

Page 10.
 Line 460. I prefer "statistical uncertainties".
 Line 466. Use "... modes was reconstructed ...".

Page 11.
 Fig. 9. There is an apparently spurious outlier at costhkcm~-0.35 that is off the
  trend by nearly an order of magnitude. Something looks problematic here, especially
  give that this is off of the trend by more than your systematic assignment.
 Line 535. Use "... and although this is more ...".

Page 12.
 Fig. 10 caption. In the first line remove the period after "center-of-mass".

Page 13.
 Fig. 11 caption. Line 7. Use "... et al.} [19] and the solid black ...".
 Line 608. Use "... mechanism that interferes with ...".

Page 15.
 Figs. 13, 14. I am not a big fan of you spline fits. The red curve is especially 
  distracting and unphysical with its zig-zag pattern. Is there a reason that you
  don't just eliminate these lines from the figure? I don't think that they add anything
  of value and serve to detract from the data.

Page 18.
 Fig. 16. Your vertical line is too faint to be seen.
 Line 717. Use "... structure (for a recent review ...".
 Line 724. Use "... its creation, ...".

References.
 Why do you list both the journal publication and the preprint number? I am not in
   favor of listing both.
 You citation listing for the journals frequent do not do well with spacing and
   formatting. There are lots of instances of things like "Phys.Rev.Lett." instead
   of "Phys. Rev. Lett.".
 Ref.[38] has some formatting problems with "(2013)" listed immediately after the
   the author's names.

Page 21.
 Line 858. I suggest "...statistical uncertainties ...".

Page 23.
 Table III caption. On the third line you do not use consistent notation for the kaon
  angle. Here you have only "\cos \theta" instead of "\cos \theta_{K^+}^{c.m.}".