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

[Barry Ritchie]

Volker, we have folded all your suggestions and corrections into the revised manuscript except for revising Fig. 3. We are still waiting to see the treatment that Physics Letters B gives the full-page figures for the eta/eta-prime paper which we submitted in response to the referees' report on that paper. We also are not aware that any articles in the recent past in Physics Letters B have been permitted to use landscape format as you suggest, though perhaps you might have seen such figures in the more distant past. At any rate, we will know better how to revise that figure once we have seen how the figures in the eta/eta-prime paper get handled. 

Sincerely yours, 

Barry


Professor Barry G. Ritchie
Department of Physics
Arizona State University
Tempe, AZ　 85287-1504

Telephone: (480) 965-4707
Fax: (480) 965-7954

-----Original Message-----
From: Volker Burkert [mailto:burkert at jlab.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2017 11:56 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

Congratulations to an important and well written manuscript reporting on precise data that will have impact on the search for new baryon states in the mass range from omega threshold to 2.1GeV.  

I have only a few comments. 

line 150: "..within a superconducting toroidal magnetic field."  => ".. within a superconducting toroidal magnet 
that generates an approximately azimuthal field distribution."   

line 229:  "..the resulting resolution for the photon energy was typically better than +/-0.1 MeV, ..." (i.e. 100 keV) This can't be right. According to a paper by Barry Ritchie (AIP 269, 547 (1992), the energy resolution of the photon tagger in the range discussed in manuscript is dEg/Eg = 0.3%, i.e. for 1 GeV photon that would be 3 MeV.  

line 286-294: "To estimate ... decay of the omega."  This is a very long sentence and should be either shortened or broken up into two shorter sentences.  

line 343: The data reported here extend knowledge of this observable well beyond the W range studied in those previous experiments, AND HAVE GENERALLY HIGHER PRECISION.

Fig.3: Caption: "Predictions from the predictions described ....." => "The curves are predictions of models described in the text: CQM (black dotted line),  .....".  
 Is the full black line by BnGa really a prediction of sorts or were our data included in the BnGa fit? If the latter then it wouldn't be a prediction and that should be mentioned. 
I also suggest to make two full-page graphs out of Fig. 3 (rotated by 90deg) to better show details of our data.

line 518: "Fig.3 shows predictions using BG approach with (dashed line) and without (dash-dotted line) considering 
the data reported here, ..."   This seems inconsistent with what is written in the Fig.3 caption. From Fig.3 I would think
it should be  " ...BG approach with (solid) and without (dashed)...." . 

line 542: ".. that the GRAAL measurements appear to be systematically too small."  => ".. that the GRAAL asymmetries are systematically too small."