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

[Eugene Pasyuk]

Biplab, 

It is not for the referee to tell you what should and what should not be in the paper. You are the author. If you choose to ignore the other collaboration paper on the subject you should give the collaboration explanations for doing so. This will look very strange for external world as if within the CLAS collaboration the right hand does not know what the left hand does. 

-Eugene 

----- Original Message -----

> From: "Biplab Dey" <biplabdey at yahoo.com>
> To: clascomment at jlab.org
> Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 9:09:25 AM
> Subject: Re: [Clascomment] OPT-IN: Data analysis techniques,
> differential cross sections and spin density matrix elements for the
> reaction gamma p -> phi p

> Dear All,
> Just a gentle reminder that our replies and latest draft have been
> posted here:

> http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~biplabd/jlab/
> If you have further questions, please let us know asap. We would like
> to finalize the submission draft by today.
> Thank you,
> -The authors

> On Thursday, February 20, 2014 9:52 AM, Biplab Dey
> <biplabdey at yahoo.com> wrote:

> > Hi again, Reinhard,
> 
> > I've tried to address your comments as best as I could:
> 
> > http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~biplabd/jlab/
> 
> > I'm aware of the issue of garbled up plots in the printed versions.
> > It would need going back and re-saving those plots as .eps (I
> > think). I'm not in a position to do this right now, but I'll take
> > care of this before the final publication.
> 
> > -Biplab
> 

> > On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 11:03 AM, Reinhard Schumacher
> > <schumacher at cmu.edu> wrote:
> 

> > > Hello Biplab,
> > 
> 

> > > I read your comments on my comments. Here is a second iteration
> > > on
> > > those comments, for the points where I still have a question.
> > 
> 

> > > Title: I still feel that the present title is still over-playing
> > > the
> > > fact that you did a lot of work on the analysis methods. Every
> > > analysis is a lot of work, and unique in some way. I would remove
> > > that first phrase.
> > 
> 

> > > line 115: Its far from clear to me why you would let a referee
> > > dictate the content of 'your' paper. There is no drawback to
> > > mentioning the other paper, and several things to gain.
> > 
> 

> > > Eq 11: ah, yes. I see.
> > 
> 

> > > line 529: Yes, I see the point, of course. Perhaps you could
> > > rephrase
> > > the sentence "The dwindling phase space at higher MKK...."
> > 
> 

> > > Fig 7: I downloaded the paper again, and again got scrambled
> > > figure
> > > legends and labels for this and many other figures. (???)
> > 
> 

> > > line 1020: Just reread your sentence about a slow rise with
> > > energy
> > > of
> > > both B and C. In Fig 31 B is falling and then flattening, and C
> > > is
> > > rising only if you ignore the most prominent feature of the
> > > distribution. I think you have to qualify your statement.
> > 
> 

> > > Fig 36: I still stand by my previous comment, though I could be
> > > wrong... The GJ frame is defined in the rest frame of the V,
> > > which
> > > is what your label indicates. But you show the V as moving and
> > > the
> > > IP at rest. You want to illustrate a V being created out of the
> > > collision of a gamma and the IP, don't you?
> > 
> 

> > > Reinhard
> > 
> 

> _______________________________________________
> Clascomment mailing list
> Clascomment at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/clascomment
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/clascomment/attachments/20140225/83c74a57/attachment.html