<div dir="ltr">Dear Michel,<div><br></div><div>Thanks so much for your detailed comments. We will incorporate your comments in our next revised version. Thanks again.</div><div><br></div><div>Best regards, Kyungseon</div>
</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 2:03 PM, Michel Garçon <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:michel.garcon@cea.fr" target="_blank">michel.garcon@cea.fr</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Comments on BSA pion SIDIS by Gohn et al.<br>
Michel Garçon, Nov. 13, 2013<br>
<br>
I think there are several stylistic errors that will be picked up by others. I just mention a few. The number in front of each comment refers to the line number.<br>
• Abstract: “ALU is a twist-3 structure….” -> “ALU is a twist-3 quantity….”<br>
• Abstract: “high statistical data” -> “high-statistics data”<br>
• 9: necessitate<br>
• 78 and 87: avoidable repetition of “related to quark-gluon-quark correlations”<br>
• 89: this sentence heavy and not grammatically correct.<br>
• Eq. 3: why subscript h on the angle? Remove.<br>
• 114: remove “Recently”<br>
• 144: “will provide access… “. This paper not only shows that at present we cannot disentangle the different contributions to ALU, but it does not sketch how it will be possible in the future. I would be more cautious and say “should provide access….”.<br>
• 154: “relative uncertainties of 10% or less”. This is not true if I look at the tables of numerical results. In addition, I would avoid talking about relative uncertainties for an asymmetry; absolute uncertainties are more relevant here (they do not vanish when the asymmetry goes to 0).<br>
• 151: for the same reasons, I would quote the beam polarization as 0.75 +/- 0.03. Otherwise, as written, one never knows if it is .03 or .03*.75.<br>
• 157: it is not so obvious to the reader (and not demonstrated later in the paper) that measuring the three channels reduces the systematic errors.<br>
• 173: the statistical error is here irrelevant. I would write “with a negligible statistical uncertainty”.<br>
• 200: is it appropriate to give here the principle of Cerenkov radiation and detection? I doubt it. If such considerations remain, then at least add what is the radiating “medium”.<br>
• Fig. 4 caption, last sentence: I would use a dashed red line (in order not to be confused with a cut) and say “The dashed red line at … 25 delineates the two regions with different CC cuts (see text).”<br>
• 223: “ratio of deposited energy over momentum as measured by the drift chambers”.<br>
• 230: why an asymmetric cut ?<br>
• 300: what is done if N_gamma > 2 ?<br>
• Eq. 6: I did not understand why you go through the fit function and not just integrate the number of counts.<br>
• 338: M_X not defined. Would not it be useful to see the three spectra of ep->epiX ?<br>
• Fig. 10: from this figure alone, the cut at z>0.4 seems arbitrary. But then why do you mention this cut here when you say after that you extract results for all z?<br>
• Eq. 8 is wrong: it is sqrt(1-(P_e*A)^2) in the numerator.<br>
• 408: again, avoid % when talking about absolute error on asymmetries (as is rightly done in Table I).<br>
• Eqs 14-15 trivial. I would not write them. A side question: the Monte-Carlo has polarization effect then? In view of the asymmetries, the differences in the number of counts is so small that it was bound to be a negligible effect.<br>
• The figures of results are not very pretty. Not very nice for publication. Symbols, error bars, frame,….<br>
• Fig. 17 caption: need to put the references to the published data.<br>
• 653: unless I read it too fast, this paper does not demonstrate that “the current measurement improves our understanding of these factors”, since we cannot pin down what is the contribution of each term. What about “the current measurement will contribute to our understanding of these factors”?<br>
(I do not mean to be negative about the significance of the measurement, just factual and optimistic for the future).<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div>Kyungseon Joo</div><div>Professor of Physics</div><div>University of Connecticut</div><div>Storrs, CT 06269</div><div><a href="http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~kjoo" target="_blank">http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~kjoo</a></div>
</div>