[d2n-analysis-talk] d2n PRL Response

Wed May 7 00:02:01 EDT 2014

Matt,

That's a very encouraging response! Thank you for sharing it. 

Best,
Diana

On May 6, 2014, at 4:34 PM, posik at jlab.org wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> I just wanted to let you know that we have received a response from the
> PRL referees (see below). Overall, it seems that our paper was pretty well
> received. Referee B has a few comments that we will now begin working on
> addressing, and I will send our answers to the d2n list.
> 
> Please feel free to send any comments that you may have.
> 
> Thank You,
> Matt
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Report of Referee A -- LR14295/Posik
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> This is well written manuscript reporting on interesting results. I
> recommend that it be accepted for publication.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Report of Referee B -- LR14295/Posik
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> The authors present a measurement of the polarized structure function
> g_2 from a transversely polarized helium-3 target with unprecedented
> statistical accuracy, the determination of the twist-3 matrix element
> d_2^n for the neutron from these data and the determination of the
> twist-4 matrix element f_2^n from these data and other additional
> information. These results are an important step for a detailed
> understanding of the nucleon’s structure and are in my opinion worth
> to be published in PRL.
> 
> The paper is very well written and I have only two major points of
> criticism:
> 
> 1) In my view the presentation of the results of the extraction of the
> twist-4 matrix element f_2^n and of the color forces should be
> extended. Given the fact that about half of the introduction deals
> with this topic and that the title promises information about color
> forces, it is not sufficient to tell the reader that the results are
> presented in Table II and then let him draw the conclusions himself.
> The results should be compared at least to those presented in Ref.
> [17]. The information should be given, why the new central value f_2^n
> = 0.073 \pm 0.040 (at Q^2 = 4.3 GeV^2) differs substantially from the
> previous value of 0.034 \pm 0.043. Is it mainly due to the change of
> d_2^n from the previous value d_2^n = 0.0079 \pm 0.0048 down to the
> new value d_2^n = -0.00035 \pm 0.00108 or due to new extracted values
> for the other quantities entering the analysis? The contents of the
> last two sentences of the paper should not only appear in the summary
> but should be mentioned before in an extended discussion of the
> results presented in Table II.
> 
> 2) Only experts that are familiar with the JLAB experiments are able
> to relate the acronyms for the various experiments given in the
> legends of Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 to the references in the captions.
> 
> In detail: In Fig. 1 five experiments appear in the legend, namely
> E142, E155, E01-012 (Resonance), E99-117, and E97-103, and in the
> caption references [24, 54, 55, 57, 58] are listed.
> 
> Ref. [54] can be related to [E142] and Ref. [58] to [E01-012], but
> Ref. [57] refers to [E154] and not to [E155] and from the given
> information it is open, which of the two references [24] and [55]
> refers to E99-117 and E97-103. Similarly the relation between the
> three acronyms that appear in Fig. 2 and the references [23, 24, 58,
> 59, 62] is unclear. Both [23] and [59] refer to [E155] and not to
> [E155x].
> 
> The captions should be extended somewhat to clarify the relation
> between experiments and reference numbers such that the reader is not
> forced to search it himself in INSPIRE.
> 
> In addition I have a number of suggestions for corrections and
> improvements of the text that the authors may take into account for
> the revised version of the paper.
> 
> * page 2, right column, end of 2nd paragraph:
> 
> Instead of ‘in the first moment of g_1, \Gamma_1.’ I propose to
> write ‘in \Gamma_1, the first moment of g_1.’
> 
> * page 3, left column, 2nd paragraph, line 5:
> 
> blank before ‘(E = ..’ missing (twice)
> 
> * page 3, left column, 3rd paragraph, line 3:
> 
> Why ‘found’? Shouldn’t it be ‘used’ or ‘presented’?
> 
> * page 4, right column, 1st paragraph, lines 6-7:
> 
> This sentence needs rephrasing. A ‘geometrical overlap’ of a
> counter and a signal cannot form a trigger signal
> 
> * page 4, right column, 2nd last line:
> 
> Remove period between ‘Eq. 8’ and the subsequent equation (9)
> 
> * page 5, left column, 2nd paragraph, lines 4-6:
> 
> Add blank before ‘(evaluated..’ (three times)
> 
> * page 3, left column, 2nd paragraph, last three lines:
> 
> It is unclear, how the statement ‘that is about 3 standard
> deviations smaller than that reported by the SLAC E155x experiment’
> is related to the number d_2^n = -0.00035 \pm 0.00108 from this
> experiment and the number d_2^n = 0.0079 \pm 0.0048 from SLAC E155x.
> 
> * Table II: dimension of F_E and F_B and equations (6) and (7):
> 
> The authors consistently use the dimension (GeV/c)^2 for Q^2. For
> consistency then equations (6) and (7) should contain the proper
> factors of hbar and c that are needed to get the correct values and
> dimensions of F_E and F_B.
> 
> * Ref. [17]:
> 
> comma missing after ‘et al.’
> 
> * Ref. [19]:
> 
> remove ‘et al.’
> 
> _______________________________________________
> d2n-analysis-talk mailing list
> d2n-analysis-talk at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/d2n-analysis-talk