OPT-IN: Exclusive Ï0p electroproduction off protons in the resonance region at photon virtualities 0.4 GeV2 ⤠Q2 ⤠1 GeV2

[Stepan Stepanyan]

Dear all,

below my comments.

Thanks, Stepan
---------------------
- definition of \phi_{\pi^0}, \theta_{p_1}, and \theta_{p_2}
- fit to \pi^0 peak on Fig. 7 to justify cut m^2_X>-0.02 GeV^2
- showing the Q^2 vs. W distribution would have been nice
- page 7, line 454,  do not think you need "the" in front of "Faraday Cup"
- will be good to give an average fraction of subtracted contribution from the target walls
- "Radiative corrections", it is not clear how exactly it is done, the MAID07 that is used for modeling the cross section has radiative effects already, as stated on line 503, then how EXCLURAD fits here?
- what is the definition of the \Delta\phi_{CMS} in Table III
- usually normalization uncertainty means uncertainties due to knowledge of the integrated luminosity (beam charge and target density). Here looks like this systematic uncertainties was derived from comparing elastic (Fig. 11) and inclusive electron scattering cross sections with world parallelizations, which is fine but as Fig. 11 shows the 5% variation is strongly electron angle dependent and hints on the detector efficiency variations (e.g. due to TOF efficiency). Labeling this as "normalization" is not exactly correct, but most importantly these variations will be different for elastic/inclusive and pi0 production, and can depend on kinematics. Did this was studied?
- line 807, "supports"
- there is inconsistency in Figures 21 to 25, some have legends on the plot some do not
- the caption of Figures 21 and 26, citation [6] is in the wrong spot? maybe should be after "extractions" -> "with the model extraction using [6] with electrocuting ..."
- line 846 "JLAB/YerPhI model [6], ..."
- interestingly enough not much discussions on comparison of data and the model on Fig. 21 to 25. Model does not describe data for most of the phase space with different contributions turned on/off
- what contributes to very large systematic uncertainty for W~7.1 in Fig.24 for Q^2=0.95 GeV^2