[Clascomment] OPT-IN:Longitudinal target-spin asymmetries for deeply virtual Compton scattering

[silvia at jlab.org]

Hello Larry,
thanks a lot for your comments, we are glad you like our paper :-) Let me
reply to your points:

1) Given the space constraints of a PRL, we chose a slightly different
approach from the usual one, when it comes to the detector description:
instead of saying "CLAS was composed by DC, TOF, CC, EC..." we introduced
directly the various detector subsystems when describing the trigger and
our final-state selection. As far as the IC is concerned, we are providing
the reference to a previous CLAS paper for which it was used. If you
really consider it necessary, we can add a few lines of description for
the IC, but it will mean exceeding the PRL length prescriptions.

2) The reason why we don't give 4 numbers for the t values is that for
each of our 5 bins in Q2-xB the central value of each t bin is a bit
different (and you can see this from the positioning of our points in
figure 4). So we'd have to quote in the text 20 different t values.
Otherwise, we could have maybe added the average t value to each phi
distribution of Figure 3, but this would have cluttered a lot the figure
(keep in mind that PRL wants the text of the figure to be big enough, so
if we must add the t value we'd have very little space for our data
points). We chose to provide the t range and t-bins limits (which are
common to the 5 Q2-xB bins) on the top of Fig. 3, and we considered that
the positioning of the points along the t axis in Fig. 4 would do the
rest. We have added now the following text, in the caption of Fig.3:
"...for each 3-dimensional bin in $Q^2$-$x_B$ (rows) and $-t$ (columns -
the bin limits are shown on the top axis).". Is this OK with you? Or else,
what would you suggest?
Keep also in mind that we are finalizing a long paper from this experiment
(which will also contain double-spin and beam-spin asymmetries, and is
half-way through its Ad Hoc review at the moment), which will have the
table with the results, and it will include the four-dimensional central
kinematics for each measured point. This information will also be put in
the CLAS DB.

3) we are working on making the figure more readable, thanks for pointing
this out.

4) In our orginal draft, we had indeed the word "dominance". Our Ad Hoc
committee objected that this word was improper because it applies more to
the magnitude of cross sections, than to phi components of asymmetries.
Therefore we adopted "prevalence". What about we leave it this way and
wait to hear what the journal referees propose? Or else, we should
rediscuss it with the Ad Hoc.

Best regards,
Silvia


> Overall this is an excellent well written paper.  I have a few concerns:
>  1) the description of CLAS is much shorter and less complete than other
> papers.  The IC is not described at all.
>  2) the t-bins are not specified except on the horizontal axis of figure
> 3.  Figure 2 states that the columns correspond to t-bins but the bins
are not specified
>  3) the symbols in figure 3 panel 6 are too small and difficult to
> distinguish from each other
>  4) line 340: replace 'prevalenec' with a word like 'dominance'
>
> _______________________________________________
> Clascomment mailing list
> Clascomment at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/clascomment
>