<div dir="ltr"><span style="font-size:13px">Dear Daniel,</span><div style="font-size:13px"><br></div><div style="font-size:13px">thanks a lot for your inputs, that we implemented almost completely in our paper.</div><div style="font-size:13px"><br></div><div style="font-size:13px">Please refer to our comments below about a couple of points.</div><div style="font-size:13px"><br></div><div style="font-size:13px">Thanks again,</div><div style="font-size:13px"><br></div><div style="font-size:13px">Angela, Erin and Silvias</div><div style="font-size:13px"><br></div><div style="font-size:13px"><br></div><div style="font-size:13px">--------------------------------------------------------------------</div><div style="font-size:13px"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra" style="font-size:13px"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><span class="im">On 20 December 2014 at 19:19, Daniel Carman <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:carman@jlab.org" target="_blank">carman@jlab.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">Silvia et al.,<br><br>I have read through the draft DVCS paper dated Dec. 12. For the most part I think the<br>paper is well constructed, but I have a list of suggestions to improve the readability.<br>Let me know if you have any questions.<br><br><br> Regards,<br><br> Daniel<br><br>************************************************************************************<br>General.<br> - You are not consistent with your usage of speed of light units in this paper. I suggest that<br> you let c=1 throughout.<br><br></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>We decided to keep the "c" factors to be consistent with the PRL, and fixed all the units accordingly.</div><span class="im"><div><br></div><div><br></div></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"> - Eq.(12),(13),(14). These equations are not well introduced. What are the $c_n$ and $s_n$ terms? Why are the sums<span class="im"><br> truncated to n=2 and/or n=3?<br><br></span></blockquote><div><br></div><div>We modified the text to introduce the Fourier coefficients, while we refer to the cited paper for further details.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><span class="im"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>Page 5.<br> - Fig. 5. This drawing is not technically correct due to the way the LAC modules are draw. They were only<br> included in S1 and S2.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div></span><div>Since we didn't use the LAC modules, we removed them from the picture.</div><span class="im"><div><br></div><div><br></div></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">Page 10.<br></blockquote><span class="im"><div> - Line 585. Use "... constant fit is still reasonable.".</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></span><div>We slighty changed this part following a suggestion from Volker.</div><div> <br></div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">Page 13.<span class="im"><br> - Line 708. Use "... are raw; no $\pi^0$ ...".<br> - Line 712. Use "... free proton (blue points) ...".<br> - Fig. 17 caption.<br> - Line 3. Use "... and square blue points are ...".<br><br></span></blockquote><span class="im"><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">Page 14.<br> - Line 717. Use "... going from a proton to a carbon target."<br> - Line 722. Use "... impact our result within the ...".<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div></span><div><div>All the carbon paragraph changed pretty much following some suggestions from Sebastian Khun.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">Page 17.<span class="im"><br> - Line 3. You point out the highest t bin for Q2=2.41 GeV2 has limited coverage, but you have said nothing<br> about the lowest t bin at Q2=3.31 GeV2 that has only a single data point (i.e. it has even more limited<br> phi coverage). Any comment? The same question is applicable to the other plots of asymmetries.<br><br></span></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes, you are right. We added a comment on that bin also.</div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="im">Page 18.<br> - Fig. 19 caption.<br></span><span class="im"> - General point. The orange and the red colors are indistinguishable. This is also true for<br> Figs. 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, and 26.<br></span></blockquote><div><br></div><div>We tried different sets of colors, but since we need to be consistent among the various plots and we have - for example in the DSA case - 4 curves to present, there is no that much choice, because we also have to remove colors too light. We introduced different line styles to take care of this occurrence, and propose to see what the PRD editors will suggest for it.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Thanks again!</div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div></div>