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

[Dave Ireland]

Hi Biplab,

When you have made the changes you want, and included the opted-in 
author list, send me a link, and we'll go to the final author check.

Cheers,

Dave




On 02/25/14 14:09, Biplab Dey wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: David_Ireland.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 316 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/clascomment/attachments/20140225/77887038/attachment-0001.vcf