[Clascomment] OPT-IN:Photon beam asymmetry sigma in the reaction gamma p -> p omega for Egamma = 1.152 to 1.876 GeV

[Daniel Carman]

Patrick, Barry et al.,

I have read through the draft of your new omega beam spin asymmetry paper. 
Below are my comments from reading through the manuscript. Let me know if 
you have any questions.


					        Regards,
						
						Daniel

************************************************************************************
Page 1:
 - Institution list. "CUA" is "The Catholic University of America" (not American).
 - Abstract line 8. Use "... here help to fix the ...".
 - Lines 37 and 40. Switch order of "K\Sigma" and "K\Lambda" in listings.

Page 2:
 - Line 100. Use "... data points and extending coverage to higher incident photon
      energies. These data possess finer ...".
 - Line 114. I suggest "... $\Sigma$ for $\pi$, $\eta$, ...".

Page 3:
 - Line 150. Use "... from the CLAS subsystems ...".
 - Line 160. Use "... [49], provided the ...".
 - Line 183. Use "... combinations of the data ...".
 - Line 207. Use "The photon whose time most closely matched ...".
 - Line 218. Use "... recoiling $p$, $\pi^+$, ...".
 - Last line. Notation switch. Use "$\cos (\theta_{c.m.}^\omega)$" for consistency.

Page 4:
 - First line. Use "... of $\varphi$ were combined ...".
 - Line 272. Use "... area of the $\omega$ peak.".
 - Line 274. The statement "Finite-bin corrections for extracted ... in Ref.[40]." is
      quite obtuse. It is not clear what point you are raising. If this is important, a
      few more words should be added to clarify.
 - Line 281. Use "... distribution of its decay products follows ...".
 - Line 283. Use "... of 1, its decay products (which were used in this work ...".
 - Line 286. Typo on "transferred".
 - Line 294. The sentence "These simulations indicated the derived photon beam asymmetry
      $\Sigma$ needed to be increased by 0.01 due to the non uniformities of charged-pion
      detection for reconstructing $\omega$ mesons" makes it sound like you are talking
      about a detection efficiency issue as opposed to a systematic effect arising due to
      a different angular distribution of the omega decay products between one assumption 
      for its decay and how reality. I think this sentence could use some attention.

Page 5:
 - Line 302. I suggest that you drop "in a particular CLAS detector volume". These words
      only raise questions that are not necessary.
 - Lines 310 to 314. Here you return to a discussion of the point raises in the last
      paragraph on the preceding page about the effect of different assumptions on the omega
      decay angular distributions. This seems to me to be a systematic uncertainty, not a
      statistical uncertainty. The discussion here definitely left me confused. This effect
      is also so small as to be entirely negligible. I would suggest that it takes up too
      much real estate and the discussed should be reduced. I would say (back on pp. 4) that
      you studied this issue and its effect was negligible and then not bring it up again.
 - Line 342. Use "Collaboration" (twice).

Page 6:
 - The figure is grainy and looks like a screen capture. Please improve the crispness of this
   figure as it is you main result.
 - Fig. 3 caption. Line 4. Use "The predictions described in the text by ...".

Page 7:
 - Line 418. Use "Consequently, all of the ...".
 - Line 423. I suggest to list the states in order of increasing mass.
 - Line 445. Use "Refs. [9-12]".
 - Line 464. Use "... for $\pi$ and $\omega$ ...".
 - Line 501. Use "... predictions was developed ...".

References:
 - You are not consistent with your capitalization from reference title to reference title. 
   Please tidy this up.
 - Also, in a list of more than one author, the last should have an "and" before it.
 - Do not put a comma between the author name and "et al.".