<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">Dear Reinhard,<div><br></div><div>I appreciate your comments. All the corrections you suggested were implemented. Please, find a new version of the paper in the attachment. A few comments on the implementation of corrections are below.</div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
I find the first paragraph repellant, as in, I would not want to read this paper. Statements about<br>
creating new "gravitational mass from pure energy" ring as very naive and trusting of theory that is not very well understood (by you). I suggest removing this whole paragraph and starting the paper with a more modest and honest set of statements about how this worthy effort fits into the larger scheme of things. Nothing in the later paper and the experimental results links to the statements made in the first few sentences. Don't promise things you cannot deliver with this work.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Thank you for your unwarranted criticism. We are presently considering either reframing the entire introduction paragraph or leaving it as is in the latest version (attached) where I have removed the first two introduction sentences related to 'gravitational mass'. I also mentioned this earlier in my response to Sebastian Kuhn's comment.</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
Page 2, Col 1, Paragraph 1, -4 lines from the bottom: remove "nontrivial"</blockquote><div><br></div><div>The features we observe in our data are indeed nontrivial!</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
P2, C2, P4, L7: You have a habit, here and later in the paper, of writing in mixed tense. Good writing typically calls for being consistent about tense, at least at the paragraph level. Usually it works best to write in past tense when describing the experiment and the analysis procedures. You can switch to present tense when you are presenting results that are immediately in front of the eyes of the reader. In this case, use "These cuts ansl ensureD xB>0.1 so that we WERE probing valence..." </blockquote><div><br></div><div><div>Good point, mixed tenses are now fixed across the paper.</div></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
Fig 1 caption: It is unhelpful to cram the formula for the function into the caption: is adds nothing the reader cares to know. Remove "The total...peak function". Also, you make the erroneous statement that you computed the number of pi0's "from the height of the Gaussian". You obviously need both the height and the width in the way you approached it.<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The formula used to be in the text, however, we found that it is much easier to follow the context of free and predetermined parameters when described directly under the figure captions. Captions were rephrased to be more clear. Considering "from the height of the Gaussian" it was corrected for the "integral of the Gaussian function".</div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
Related to how you fitted the pi0 peak, you should have used a normalized Gaussian in your fitting function, with just a single parameter specifying the number of counts under the curve. Your method is less good, because you ignore the correlated uncertainties between the fitted height and the fitted width. That is, you have to take two fitted numbers to compute the total number of particles. But the "error" on that number cannot be computed with ordinary error propagation on account of the correlations. A better method would be, as mentioned, to fit directly to a normalized Gaussian that takes care of that mistake easily.<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The peak was fitted with normalized Gaussian function as you can see from the formula under the figure caption. </div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
P3, C1,P2, -3 lines from bottom: Use "two photon invariant mass". Then, in the next sentence, it is not clear what you mean by "After energy correction...": you do not specify what this correction is about.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>This is now corrected by making a statement a sentence earlier on the photon energy correction. </div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
P6, C1, P2, L13: You say "...due to the lenth contraction of the propagating quark..." , which is nonsensical. What are you really trying to say? <br></blockquote><div> </div><div>Lorentz contraction of path length.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
P6, C2, P1, L3: Again confusing. You say "Such behaviour is opposite to the published HERMES results, which suggests.... " This has not been made clear enough yet. Are you saying the neutral pion result (CLAS) is different from the charged pion result (HERMES), or something else?<br></blockquote><div> </div><div>Yes, indeed. This sentence was made more clear.</div><div> </div><div><br></div><div>All other comments were implemented as suggested. </div><div><br></div><div>Thanks again and best regards,</div><div>Taisiya </div></div></div>