[d2n-analysis-talk] A1n letter

[matt posik]

Hi Diana,

Thanks for passing this information along. I have read the referees'
comments and have included my thoughts to some of the comments below.
I agree with Zein-Eddine's thoughts on where to go next with the A1n paper.

--------
Ref A:
--------

None

--------
Ref B:
-------

*The paper does not discuss any momentum / x-resolution discussed, neither
are the data*
*unfolded for the detector resolutions and the radiative corrections, which
don’t factorize.*

Since we are not going for PRL anymore (less restrictions on space), we
could put a sentence or two concerning the detector resolutions.
As far as radiative corrections go, I counted about 7 sentences discussing
this, unless I am misunderstanding the comment.

*It is very surprising that only LO models are used, despite the fact that
several modern polarized*
*PDFs exist in NLO since years. It is requested to include at least one NLO
prediction in Fig. 1*
*and 2. including their uncertainties*

I am pretty sure that the statistical model uses NLO pdfs.

--------
Ref C:
--------

*the data corroborate a previous observation of a zero crossing*
* near $x = 0.5$*

Maybe we can dilute this statement a little by saying "suggests" or
"appears" rather than "corroborate" ?

*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 $x = 0.6$.*

I agree with the referee. I think we can cut down a lot of the DSE
discussion in this paper and inculde it in
the long paper where we show A1n results using the duality argument that
extend out to about x = 0.8.

-Matt

On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Diana Parno <dparno at uw.edu> 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.
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> d2n-analysis-talk mailing list
> d2n-analysis-talk at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/d2n-analysis-talk
>
>


-- 
 Matthew Posik
 Postdoctoral Fellow

 Temple University
 Department of Physics
 Barton Hall
 1900 North 13th Street
 Philadelphia, PA 19122
 USA

 TU Office: Barton Hall, A319
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/d2n-analysis-talk/attachments/20140918/5314f77c/attachment-0001.html