[Clascomment] OPT-IN:First Measurement of the Polarization Observable E in the p(gamma, pi+)n Reaction up to 2.25 GeV

[Reinhard Schumacher]

						1-29-2015
Dear Steffen et al.,
    
Your paper "First measurement of...up to 2.25 GeV" is in fair shape,
but I think you can improve in some ways.  Overall, it seems to me
that you need more references to support various statements that you
make near the beginning of the paper, as outlined below.

The bigger substantive issue is the question of why you do not show
the BoGa curves in Figure 2.  The whole paper is written as though you
will show these, and Table 1 includes the revised couplings from their
model, but at the "last moment" you leave the curves off, with only a
comment in the Figure caption that there will be a "follow-up paper".
I think the reader will want more: either don't promise to show the
comparison up front, or show the BoGa curves, as more or less promised
at the outset.

Figure 2 is already cluttered and therefore hard to read.  Since most of
the panels look almost the same, what is the value in showing all of
them?  The paper would have more impact if you change this figure to
show only a few panels that illustrate the various shapes at a few
energies.  Each of these panels could be larger so you can actually
make out the curves.  If they are large enough you could then also
include the BoGa curves for completeness.  This does not preclude your
writing a follow-up paper with more details.

page 1 paragraph 1: put a key reference to a review article next to
each theory you mention. 

page 1, line 20: "models assuming SOME baryon resonances are
dynamically generated from the UNITARIZED interaction AMONG
GROUND-STATE BARYONS AND MESONS."

line 46: "The consistency..." this statement needs a reference.

line 51: It is really bad form, in my opinion, to say there is
something "most striking" about some new analysis of data including
these new results, but then say, in essence "we are not going to tell
you about it in this paper".  If this is such an important thing, your
article should be about this most striking thing.  If I were reviewing
this paper for the journal, I would demote it from "Letter" status to
a routine PhysRevC -type paper without this inclusion.

page 2 line 38:  IS --> WAS;  the rest of this paragraph is all past
tense

line 55 and line 64: again, ARE --> WERE for consistent tense

page 3 line 12: the phrasing "fairly symmetrical" and "bowl shape" can
be improved, I think.  How about "display an approximately "u"-shaped
distribution between the required maxima at cos\theta = \pm 1 and
dipping to about -0.5."

page 3 line 100: You really SHOULD NOT end the paper with a sentence
about something the paper does not discuss at all.  Saying "...while
the new E data led to major changes....re-analysis" just frustrates
the reader, since this is not supported by the paper at all.  I would
either refocus the paper on these "major changes" or perhaps remove
mention of the BoGa mystery-work altogether.

That's all for now, 

Reinhard.