[Clascomment] OPT-IN:Direct Observation of Proton-Neutron Short-Range Correlation Dominance in Heavy Nuclei

[Daniel Carman]

Dear SRC folks,

I have read through your draft of your latest short range correlation paper and
include my comments below. Most of what I have provided below will serve to improve
the grammar and readability of the paper. If you have any questions, let me know.

Regards,
Daniel
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
General:
 - You are not consistent with your verb tenses throughout. In general, you should be
   writing in the past tense when describing your analysis. I have tried to capture this
   below.
 - You are not consistent in your usage of "cross section" vs. "cross-section". Please
   review.
 - You are not consistent in the text with your style with regard to references. As an
   example, you sometimes use a format like ".... relatively low momentum, following [2], ..."
   and sometimes you use a format like "... $\sigma_{en}$ from Ref. [36].". Choose one
   format and be consistent throughout.
 - You are not consistent in your notation between A(e,e'pn) and A(e,e'np). Choose one
   format and be consistent throughout. This includes notation for "$pn$ pair" and
   "$np$ pair".
- As you are trying to submit this as a PRL, it is important that this paper presents a
   strong conclusion with the key points specified and explained. For my tastes the
   conclusion is missing a key sentence to explain why the finding of np pair dominance
   is important. As it stands now the main conclusion of the paper is that the data support
   this np pair dominance in a broad range of nuclei. The next question is "so what?". You
   need to make a statement that moves beyond the observation of a curious finding with
   not only a physics interpretation, but also why this finding is important.

Page 1:
 - Abstract:
   - Line 1. Use "$A(e,e'np)$ and $A(e,e'pp)$".
 - Left column:
   - Paragraph 2.
     - Line 8. Use "... $A(e,e'pp)$, ...".
     - Line 14. Use "... was explained as being due ...".
   - Paragraph 3.
     - Line 1. Use "carbon".
     - Line 2. Use "... $np$-SRC pairs was never ...".
 - Right column:
   - Paragraph 3.
     - Line 5. Use "quasi-elastic".
   - Paragraph 4.
     - Line 2. The variable "m" is not defined in your xB definition.

Page 2:
 - Left column:
   - Paragraph 1.
     - Line 2. Use "... high-$Q^2$, ...".
     - Line 3. Use "final state interactions".
     - Line 4. Use "single-charge exchange".
     - Line 6. Use "... framework, which was shown ...".
     - Line 9. Use "... do not lead to ...".
   - Paragraph 2.
     - Line 1. Use "$A(e,e'p)$".
     - Line 2. Use "$A(e,e'n)$".
   - Paragraph 4.
     - Line 7. Use "... pions were tracked by ...".
     - Line 10. Use "Electrons were identified ...".
     - Line 12. Use "... energy deposition in ... pions were identified ...".
     - Line 16. Use "... separation was further ...".
     - Line 17. Use "... the protons to deposit ...".
     - Line 18. Use "Neutrons were ...".
 - Right column:
   - Table I.
      - Next to last row. Use "SC Deposited Energy".
   - Paragraph 2.
     - Line 8. Use "... that were emitted ...".
     - Line 9. Use "... neutrons could be detected,  which ensured ...".
     - Line 11. Use "... nucleon carried ...".
     - Line 13. Use "... and was emitted ...".
     - Line 23. Use "$A(e,e'p)$"
     - Line 24. Use "... $A(e,e'n)$ events. This proton was ...".
     - Line 27. Use "... protons had relatively ...".
     - Line 28. Use "... we corrected their ...".
   - Paragraph 3.
     - Line 2. Use "... reactions were measured ...".
     - Line 5. Use "... yields required minimal corrections. The accumulated ...".

Page 3:
 - Left column:
    - Fig. 1 caption. Last line. Use "Appendix".
    - Paragraph 1.
      - Line 1.  Use "... time was the same ...".
      - Line 2. Use "... therefore canceled in ...".
      - Line 3. Use "... particles was the same ...".
      - Line 5. Use "While this was true ...".
      - Line 6. Use "... this was not ...".
      - Line 8. Use "Even if they were ...".
      - Line 9. Use "... they would have been detected ...".
      - Line 11. Use "... trajectories were bent due ...".
      - Line 12. Use "This was accounted for ...".
      - Line 13. Use "... considered leading ...".
      - Line 15. Use "... applied were for the ...".
    - Paragraph 2.
      - Line 5. Use "This scaling was applied ...".
 - Right column:
  - Paragraph 1.
    - Line 4. Use "(see Table III in the Appendix)."
  - Paragraph 3.
    - Line 11. Use "$A(e,e'pp)$".
  - Paragraph 4.
    - Line 2. Use "... we used the ...".
    - Line 4. Use "... of Ref. [24] that were done ...".
    - Line 5. Use "We applied these ...".
    - Line 8. Use "... this approximation, the relative ...".
    - Line 10. Use "Appendix".
    - Line 4 after Eq.(1). Use "... and having either the ...".
    - Line 6 after Eq.(1). Use "Appendix".
    - Line 8 after Eq.(1). Use "Appendix".
    - Line 7 after Eq.(1). The last sentence of this paragraph is not a proper sentence as written.
      How about "... shown in Fig. 1, other calculations for these corrections can be applied in the
      future."?
    
Page 4:
 - Left column:
    - Table II.
       - Caption line 3. Use "... $pp/np$ ratio are ...".
       - First column label. Use "$A$".
    - Paragraph 1.
      - Line 4. Use "Appendix".
      - Line 5. Use "We note for completeness ..".
    - Paragraph 2.
      - Line 6. Use "Using model-dependent ...".
      - Line 7. Use "... SCX corrections, we also extracted the ...".
    - Paragraph 3.
      - Line 4. Use "... events were due ...".
 - Right column:
   - Paragraph 1.
     - Line 4. Use "Pazy Foundation".
     - Line 5. Missing accents for Chilean Comisin ...
     - Line 6. Missing accents and apostrophe for French Centre ...
     - Line 10. Use "UK's".
     - Line 16. Use "Lab's".
   - Appendix.
     - Paragraph 1.
       - Line 1 after Eq.(2). Use "... is the number ...".
     - Paragraph 4.
       - Line 2. Use "$A(e,e'pp)/A(e,e'pn)$".
       - Line 4. Use "high-$Q^2$".
       - Line 5. Use "... with a high energy .. that has the ...".
       - Line 6. Use "... for $pp$ and $np$ pairs ...".
     - Paragraph 5.
       - Line 2. Use "... was done following ... using a Monte Carlo ...".
       - Line 3. PDF is not defined.
       - Line 3. Use "... was extracted ...".

Page 5:
 - Left column:
   - Table III.
      - Caption. Last line. Use "($T$)".
      - Table first row. Use "$A$" for column 1. Use "$T$ for the last column.
   - Paragraph 1.
     - Line 2. Use "... probabilities, etc.) were randomly ...".
     - Line 3. Use "Gaussian".
     - Line 4. Use "... that equaled their associated uncertainties.".
     - Line 5. Use "... ($R$), are listed in Table III, ...".
     - Line 6. Use "Table IV".
     - Line 9. Use "... was drawn from ...".
     - Line 13. Use "... and were obtained from ..."
   - Table IV. The notation of the first column is obtuse and needs to be explained for the reader.

References:
 - [4],[5] - Use abbreviation for journal name
 - [15]. Use "Phys. Rev. Lett.".
 - [16]. Use "Phys. Rev. Lett.".
 - [27],[28],[36],[38]. Do not include preprint number for an already published paper.
 - [31]. Problem with names.