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

[Barry Ritchie]

Thank you for your comments, Reinhard. I have incorporated your editorial suggestions all with minor tweaks. 

For your question "line 181:  It is not clear to the reader what you mean by "varying CLAS acceptance".   Do mean varying with time?   If so, perhaps add a sentence about what could cause these variations.   Do you mean azimuthal acceptance non-uniformities?   If so,  perhaps replace the word 'vary' with 'non-uniform'. " , we now use the word "non-uniform" to refer to the acceptance for the decay products of the eta. 

For your question, " line 531:  Do you mean "smaller" or do you really want to say "smallest"?", we mean smaller and have made that change. 

As for the suggested appendix, since we are likely very near (if not already above) the page limit in Physics Letters B, we will provide a reference for the data to the CLAS database. 

Sincerely yours,

Barry


Professor Barry G. Ritchie 
Department of Physics 
Arizona State University 
Tempe, AZ 85287-1504
 
Phone: (480) 965-4707 
Fax: (480) 965-7954


-----Original Message-----
From: Reinhard Schumacher [mailto:schumacher at cmu.edu] 
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 11:16 AM
To: clasmbr at jlab.org; clascomment at jlab.org; briscoe at gwu.edu; dugger at jlab.org; fklein at jlab.org; Barry Ritchie <Barry.Ritchie at asu.edu>; jordanka at jlab.org; jixie at jlab.org; pcollins at jlab.org
Subject: OPT-IN:Photon beam asymmetry sigma in the reaction gamma p -> p omega for Egamma = 1.152 to 1.876 GeV

Hello Barry, Mike,  et al.,

I've read through your new CLAS paper on the Sigma asymmetry for omega
photoproduction.   In my  view it is very well written and should sail
through to publication.    Here are my comments and suggestions, all
of which are quite minor.

Abstract:  remove the last sentence.  It is empty of content and an
unnecessary self-promotion of the importance of the results.   Let
the reader decide...

line 41: "...the reaction FOR \omega photoproduction..."

line 181:  It is not clear to the reader what you mean by "varying
CLAS acceptance".   Do mean varying with time?   If so, perhaps add a
sentence about what could cause these variations.   Do you mean
azimuthal acceptance non-uniformities?   If so,  perhaps replace the word 'vary'
with 'non-uniform'.   

line 237:  "associated"

page 3, 2 lines from bottom:  here and on the next page you do not define the meaning of "n".  You just refer the reader to Refs 40 and
41.   However, the reader of this paper should get a brief stand-alone
explanation of the significance of the nth moment.   This also is an
issue for understanding what Eq (2) is saying.

line 274:  Maybe you want to say "Finite-SIZE bin corrections..."

line 423:  Why are the N* resonances not listed in order of increasing
mass?   The reader will look at this list and not know what the
ordering refers to.

line 456:  The phrase in parentheses ought to go after "...coupled-channels approach"

line 531:  Do you mean "smaller" or do you really want to say "smallest"?

Ref 50:  "CLAS"

Appendix:  Many papers append the numerical results of the work as an appendix, so that the numbers are forever associated with the text.
You did not chose to do this, but I would.  I you really don't want to add an appendix, at least add a reference to where the numbers are archived.

That's all for this round of comments, let me know if you have any questions.

Best Regards,
Reinhard