[Clascomment] OPT-IN:Beam-spin Asymmetries from Semi-inclusive Pion Electroproduction

[Enzo DeSanctis]

The Abstract is too long and detailed. I would unite the first two sentences, and drop the short notation in brackets ‘(BSAs)’ on the 3rd line and ‘the continuous electron beam accelerator facility CEBAF Large Acceptance Spectrometer’, on the 4th line. That is I would write:
‘The moment A_{LU}˄{sintheta} of the semi-inclusive deep inelastic scattering (SIDIS) cross section, corresponding to a polarized lepton scattering from an unpolarized target, has been extracted from measurements of beam-spin asymmetries from pion electro-production in SIDIS. Data were taken with the CEBAF detector at Jefferson Lab using …’

Moreover, I would make the following changes:
- on line 7, ‘within the intermediate Q2 range (Q2=1-4.5 GeV2)’ -- > ‘at the intermediate virtuality range Q2=1.0-4.5 GeV2. (give numbers with the same significant figures, as it is done on line 536).
- on line 8,‘… of z, PT, x and Q2’ -- > ‘of the kinematic variables z, PT, x and Q2’.

In the text:
- Line 22, ‘…has extended its investigation …’ -- > ‘… has extended the investigation … ‘
- Line 92, -- > ‘… redefinition of twist t to be …’
- The quantities f_1 and D_1 of Eq. (3) are not defined in the text.
- Line 130, -- > ‘… was predicted by F. Yuan [18] …’
- Line 150, -- > ‘5.498 GeV’, as it is written in the abstract. The same happens on line 165.
- Lines 325-329, the kinematical quantities x, z and P_T have already been defined on lines 51-57. You might move the mathematical definition there and be short here.
- Line 333, -- > ‘… from 1.0 GeV˄2 to 4.5 GeV˄2’ (give numbers with the same significant figures, as it is done on line 536.
- Eq. (9), I would use lowercase letters a, b and c for the coefficients in order to avoid possible misunderstandings with A_{LU}Ë„{sintheta} and also with the acceptance A of Eq (12).
- Eq (12): use a different symbol for the acceptance (see previous pont). Moreover on line 519 -- > ‘(the subscripts are R = reconstructed and …’.
- Line 52, -- > ‘… and N_M = measured)’.
- Line 561, you could give, in brackets after ‘CLAS measurement’, the values of the systematic errors for the two experiments.
- Fig. 15, figures and letters on the axis are too small. In the caption, line 3, -- > ‘shaded regions at the bottom represent …’.
- Fig. 16, figures and letters on the axis are too small.
- Eq (16), I would use a different symbol instead of f, to avoid any possible confusion with the fitting function of Eq (9).
- Fig. 17, I would use larger size for the CLAS points (the full circles and triangles are less visible than the Hermes squares). Moreover, in the caption, line 4: ‘and the solid bands show …’ -- > ‘and the shaded bands at the bottom show…’.
- Fig. 18, caption: change [15] -- > [14, 15] on line 2 and [52] -- > [51, 52] on line 4 to be consistent with what is written on lines 593 and 598.
- Line 726, drop the article ‘The’ before COMPASS, that is write: ‘COMPASS Collaboration’.
- Lines 758, 760, 767, and 773: add ‘Collaboration’ after CLAS and HERMES.