[d2n-analysis-talk] A1n letter

Wed Sep 17 16:09:31 EDT 2014

Hello Diana,

Thank you for the information, it is unfortunate it took such a long time for PRL to decide. I read the referees' comments and they are helpful for the next step. My first thought is that we should take them into  account and submit it as a letter to Physics Letters B.  Another possibility is to go to brief reports in PRC but there we have to consider the long paper  that will be submitted to  PRC very soon with more detailed information, this will interfere with the brief report submission.  The impact factor of Physics Letters B is higher than PRC, the 5 year impact factor of PLB is 4.156 and that of PRC is 3.551. My preference is to submit to brief report as a last resort, but I am open to other suggestions that will make the successful publication possible sooner than later.

Best,
Zein-Eddine

On Sep 17, 2014, at 2:02 PM, Diana Parno wrote:

> 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.
>> 
> <lt14132_report_1_b.pdf>
> _______________________________________________
> d2n-analysis-talk mailing list
> d2n-analysis-talk at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/d2n-analysis-talk