[d2n-analysis-talk] A1n letter

[Diana Parno]

Hi all,

Yesterday I finally heard back from the editor and unfortunately they have decided not to publish our letter in Physical Review Letters. They recommend resubmission to PRC or PRD, perhaps as a Rapid Communication or a Brief Report.

I gather that Referee B never replied to the editor. Referee C has some very detailed and knowledgeable comments which I intend to begin addressing within the next week or so, in preparation for another submission. Referee A doesn't have much feedback but it is nice to know that they liked it!

Please let me know if you have more thoughts or suggestions on how to proceed. I am eager to move forward!

Best,
Diana

----------------------------------------------------
Diana S. Parno
Acting Assistant Professor
Associate Director, CENPA
Center for Experimental Nuclear Physics and Astrophysics
University of Washington
Box 354290
Seattle, WA 98195-4290

Email: dparno at uw.edu
Tel.: (206) 543-4035

Begin forwarded message:

> From: prl at aps.org
> Subject: Your_manuscript LT14132 Parno
> Date: September 16, 2014 6:28:47 AM PDT
> To: dparno at uw.edu
> Reply-To: prl at aps.org
> 
> Re: LT14132
>    Precision measurements of A 1 n in the deep inelastic regime
>    by D. S. Parno, D. Flay, M. Posik, et al.
> 
> Dear Dr. Parno,
> 
> The above manuscript has been reviewed by our referees.  A critique
> drawn from the reports appears below.  On this basis, we judge that
> while the work probably warrants publication in some form, it does not
> meet the Physical Review Letters criteria of impact, innovation, and
> interest.
> 
> The paper, with revision as appropriate, might be suitable for
> publication in Physical Review.  If you submit the paper to Physical
> Review, the editors of that journal will make the decision on
> publication of the paper, and may seek further review; however, our
> complete file will be available.
> 
> If you submit this manuscript or a revision of it to Physical Review,
> be sure to respond to all referee comments and cite the code number
> assigned to the paper to facilitate transfer of the records.
> 
> Yours sincerely,
> 
> Kevin Dusling
> Assistant Editor
> Physical Review Letters
> Email: prl at aps.org
> http://journals.aps.org/prl/
> 
> IMPORTANT: Editorial "Review Changes"
> http://journals.aps.org/prl/edannounce/PhysRevLett.111.180001
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Report of Referee A -- LT14132/Parno
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> This manuscript reports new results on the double-spin asymmetry
> $A_1^n$ in deep inelastic electron-neutron scattering. The
> introduction nicely summarizes various models for the structure of the
> neutron and the expected asymmetry behavior expected for each,
> thereby enabling a non-specialist to assess the impact of the
> measurements. The manuscript contains a thorough summary of the
> techniques utilized, as well as a discussion of the comparisons of the
> various models to the data. Goals for upcoming experiments of a
> similar nature are also discussed.
> 
> I believe that this manuscript satisfies the criteria for a Physical
> Review Letter and I recommend that it be accepted.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Report of Referee B -- LT14132/Parno
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> See Attachment: lt14132_report_1_b.pdf
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Report of Referee C -- LT14132/Parno
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> This manuscript reports results and analysis of an experiment done in
> 2009 at the Jefferson Lab. The apparatus included an open-geometry
> spectrometer deployed at a large scattering angle and a polarized
> ${\rm ^3He}$ target allowing the extraction of the polarized structure
> function of the neutron. Such data are needed, in combination with
> data on polarized proton targets to determine the spin-dependent
> parton densities of the up and down quarks of the nucleons.
> 
> There are two aspects to this manuscript: the experiment and the
> interpretation. In this evaluation, I will treat each in turn. The
> text begins with a good introduction to the subject matter over the
> first two paragraphs, then it switches to a fairly lengthy discourse
> on phenomenological models extending over three paragraphs, before
> returning in the last paragraph of the second column of page 2 to an
> essential description of the experiment and its results.
> 
> The data are valuable since they provide 6 data points on $A_1^{n}$ in
> the range 0.28 $< x <$ 0.55, consistent with previous measurements.
> However, these new data come with relatively large uncertainties, as
> seen in Table 1 and Fig. 1 of the paper. As such, in and of
> themselves, the data do not allow significant conclusions. In
> particular, based on the size of the uncertainties in Table 1, this
> reader does not agree with the claim by the authors in their Abstract
> that ``the data corroborate a previous observation of a zero crossing
> near $x = 0.5$".
> 
> More than just new data in an extended range of $x$, a Physical Review
> Letter should include a definitive result with impact. This proposed
> letter does not.
> 
> The discourse on phenomenological models on the page 2 and the
> comments toward the end of page 4 on distinguishing among models do
> not strengthen the manuscript. There is a statement that the data
> disfavor leading-order perturbative quantum chromodynamics without
> orbital angular momentum (OAM). As far as I can tell, this statement
> is based on the fact that the Avakian et al. curves in Figs 1 and 2
> (bottom) agree much better with the data than some of the other curves
> such as the LSS curve. However, the reader is left wondering whether
> the presence of OAM is responsible for this improvement or whether
> there are other differences between those models that account for the
> difference. In addition, it is unclear why the authors devote so much
> attention to the DSE approach (long paragraph in the second column of
> page 2). The DSE model makes statements about the point $x = 1$
> whereas the data in the experiment do not extend above $x = 0.6$.
> 
> Overall, the manuscript does not meet the criteria for Physical Review
> Letters. The experiment and the data appear solid, so I would
> recommend publication in Physical Review C after some revisions of the
> interpretation of the data.
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: lt14132_report_1_b.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 89790 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/d2n-analysis-talk/attachments/20140917/24401f48/attachment-0001.pdf 
-------------- next part --------------