[Clascomment] OPT-IN: Data analysis techniques, differential cross sections and spin density matrix elements for the reaction gamma p -> phi p

[Biplab Dey]

Dear All,

A quick note that the replies are being compiled at:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~biplabd/jlab/cwr_phi_reply.pdf
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~biplabd/jlab/paper.pdf
Thank you,

-The authors





On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 1:02 PM, Sebastian Kuhn <skuhn at odu.edu> wrote:
 
Just a few issues:
>
>Line 12, you must mean "off shell", not "on shell"?
>Line 26-27: Maybe a quibble, but I don't think SU(6) (as in "SU(6) symmetry") would assign the phi a pure ss-bar configuration (rather, it would be the pure singlet state). But of course I know what you mean - perhaps better to say "the SU(6)-based quark model" or something like that.
>Line 37: The transition is a bit abrupt - you are talking about the phi, and then suddenly pp scattering. Maybe some motivation for what follows would help .
>Line 116-117: A bit vague and "inelegant". Maybe better to already refer at this point to WHICH data set you are using (at least describe in general terms where it was taken and over what energy
 range). Possible reformulation of the sentence: "In this work, we report a precision study of phi  photoproduction using a high statistics dataset"
>Line 138 ff: "Helicity conservation in any frame refers to the deviation of the rho000 SDME from 0 in that frame" is a bit unclear - does helicity CONSERVATION mean that rho000 should DEVIATE from 0? or what? Maybe even a definition of rho000 would help…
>173 ff: I would combine chapters 2 and 3 into a single one and start out with referring to the data set as g11a and listing references 40-45 right away to orient the reader towards what this data set is. Then add the few experimental and data analysis details you have listed and end by saying "further details can be found in [40]" or some such. Of course, you should also add the previous paper by Seraydaryan et al. (arXiv:1308.1363)
>467: Not a well-formed sentence
>Fig. 10 is a bit confusing - the phi-decay plane does not seem to contain
 the phi direction (which it must).
>736ff: Line numbering ends surprisingly. More important: the discussion seems a bit muddled. For one the sentence should begin "The 3 spin operators" ("These" implies the operators have been mentioned before). Then it is said that pure states are eigenstates to the full vector operator S. Of course, there are no simultaneous eigenstates to Sx and Sy etc.!
>p. 16 is mostly empty
>Fig. 18 caption: "2003 Saphir 2003"
>1120 The word "both" appears twice
>One last comment: It is hard to follow the text once the "onslaught" of 1-page figures begins. Maybe it would be better to keep the "complete tabular results" at the end of the paper as an appendix, so that figures like 35 and 36 can appear closer to where they are mentioned in the text (makes understanding a whole lot easier).
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/clascomment/attachments/20140211/f25e7e65/attachment.html