[Clascomment] OPT-IN:Measurements of ep -> e'pi+pi-p' Cross Sections with CLAS at 1.40 GeV < W < 2.0 GeV and 2.0 GeV2 < Q2 < 5.0 GeV2

[Viktor Mokeev]

  Dear Reinhard,

 Thank you for your prompt response! 

A quick comment on the proposed title modification: we obtained pi^+pi^-p cross sections not only in the second resonance region, but in entire range of W where all well established resonances are located including second, third, and sometimes the so-called fourth (1.9GeV<W<2.0 GeV)  resonance regions.  We will work on your comments in regards of the abstract and the Table 4

  Best Regards,
                   Victor

----- Original Message -----
From: "Reinhard Schumacher" <schumacher at cmu.edu>
To: "clasmbr" <clasmbr at jlab.org>, "clascomment" <clascomment at jlab.org>, "burkert" <burkert at jlab.org>, "Kenneth Hicks" <hicks at ohio.edu>, "Viktor Mokeev" <mokeev at jlab.org>, ioana at jlab.org, "Ivan Bedlinskiy" <bedlinsk at jlab.org>, "bsi" <BSI at depni.sinp.msu.ru>, "Evgeny Isupov" <isupov at jlab.org>, mkunkel at jlab.org
Sent: Friday, March 3, 2017 1:54:45 PM
Subject: OPT-IN:Measurements of ep -> e'pi+pi-p' Cross Sections with CLAS at 1.40 GeV < W < 2.0 GeV and 2.0 GeV2 < Q2 < 5.0 GeV2

Hello E.L. Isopov et al.,

I have a few quick comments on your paper "Measurement of ep-->epipip cross sections...5.0 GeV/c^2".   (I don't think I will have time in the next few weeks to read it in detail, sorry.)

Title:   I don't think you need "with CLAS" in the title if you say the same thing in the first line of the Abstract.   Also, your title is not very likely to excite people to read the paper.   How about something like "Measurements of ep-->epipip in the second nucleon resonance region and at large virtualities"?    That is, use more words and fewer numbers.   The numbers belong in the Abstract.    

Abstract:  To me it looks like a weak Abstract because you do not tell the reader what your main result is.   The last sentence says almost nothing and can be removed.   Replace it with a positive statement about your interesting result:  you are claiming to track the evolution of the resonant contribution to the reaction with increasing Q^2, and it turns out you have evidence that this contribution is increasing.   This leads to the hope/promise that high-mass resonances can be separated from the meson-baryon chaff at high values of Q^2.   I would write a concise sentence that says this and finish the Abstract with that statement.   That will get people interested. 

Table 4:  This is a key result in your paper and it should look good.   But it contains an elementary mistake.  You give the uncertainty on each number to the thousandths place but the actual value only to the hundredths place.  Match the significant digits!