<div dir="ltr">Hi Diana,<div><br></div><div>Thanks for passing this information along. I have read the referees' comments and have included my thoughts to some of the comments below. </div><div>I agree with Zein-Eddine's thoughts on where to go next with the A1n paper. </div><div><br></div><div><div>--------</div><div>Ref A:</div><div>--------</div><div><br></div><div>None</div><div><br></div><div>--------</div><div>Ref B:</div><div>-------</div><div><br></div><div><i>The paper does not discuss any momentum / x-resolution discussed, neither are the data</i></div><div><i>unfolded for the detector resolutions and the radiative corrections, which don’t factorize.</i></div><div><br></div><div>Since we are not going for PRL anymore (less restrictions on space), we could put a sentence or two concerning the detector resolutions.</div><div>As far as radiative corrections go, I counted about 7 sentences discussing this, unless I am misunderstanding the comment.</div><div><br></div><div><i>It is very surprising that only LO models are used, despite the fact that several modern polarized</i></div><div><i>PDFs exist in NLO since years. It is requested to include at least one NLO prediction in Fig. 1</i></div><div><i>and 2. including their uncertainties</i></div><div><br></div><div>I am pretty sure that the statistical model uses NLO pdfs.</div><div><br></div><div>--------</div><div>Ref C:</div><div>--------</div><div><br></div><div><i>the data corroborate a previous observation of a zero crossing</i></div><div><i> near $x = 0.5$</i></div><div><br></div><div>Maybe we can dilute this statement a little by saying "suggests" or "appears" rather than "corroborate" ?</div><div><br></div><div><i>In addition, it is unclear why the authors devote so much</i></div><div><i>attention to the DSE approach (long paragraph in the second column of</i></div><div><i>page 2). The DSE model makes statements about the point $x = 1$</i></div><div><i>whereas the data in the experiment do not extend above $x = 0.6$.</i></div><div><br></div><div>I agree with the referee. I think we can cut down a lot of the DSE discussion in this paper and inculde it in</div><div>the long paper where we show A1n results using the duality argument that extend out to about x = 0.8.</div></div><div><br></div><div>-Matt</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Diana Parno <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dparno@uw.edu" target="_blank">dparno@uw.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi all,<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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!<br>
<br>
Please let me know if you have more thoughts or suggestions on how to proceed. I am eager to move forward!<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
Diana<br>
<br>
----------------------------------------------------<br>
Diana S. Parno<br>
Acting Assistant Professor<br>
Associate Director, CENPA<br>
Center for Experimental Nuclear Physics and Astrophysics<br>
University of Washington<br>
Box 354290<br>
Seattle, WA 98195-4290<br>
<br>
Email: <a href="mailto:dparno@uw.edu">dparno@uw.edu</a><br>
Tel.: <a href="tel:%28206%29%20543-4035" value="+12065434035">(206) 543-4035</a><br>
<br>
Begin forwarded message:<br>
<br>
> From: <a href="mailto:prl@aps.org">prl@aps.org</a><br>
> Subject: Your_manuscript LT14132 Parno<br>
> Date: September 16, 2014 6:28:47 AM PDT<br>
> To: <a href="mailto:dparno@uw.edu">dparno@uw.edu</a><br>
> Reply-To: <a href="mailto:prl@aps.org">prl@aps.org</a><br>
><br>
> Re: LT14132<br>
> Precision measurements of A 1 n in the deep inelastic regime<br>
> by D. S. Parno, D. Flay, M. Posik, et al.<br>
><br>
> Dear Dr. Parno,<br>
><br>
> The above manuscript has been reviewed by our referees. A critique<br>
> drawn from the reports appears below. On this basis, we judge that<br>
> while the work probably warrants publication in some form, it does not<br>
> meet the Physical Review Letters criteria of impact, innovation, and<br>
> interest.<br>
><br>
> The paper, with revision as appropriate, might be suitable for<br>
> publication in Physical Review. If you submit the paper to Physical<br>
> Review, the editors of that journal will make the decision on<br>
> publication of the paper, and may seek further review; however, our<br>
> complete file will be available.<br>
><br>
> If you submit this manuscript or a revision of it to Physical Review,<br>
> be sure to respond to all referee comments and cite the code number<br>
> assigned to the paper to facilitate transfer of the records.<br>
><br>
> Yours sincerely,<br>
><br>
> Kevin Dusling<br>
> Assistant Editor<br>
> Physical Review Letters<br>
> Email: <a href="mailto:prl@aps.org">prl@aps.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://journals.aps.org/prl/" target="_blank">http://journals.aps.org/prl/</a><br>
><br>
> IMPORTANT: Editorial "Review Changes"<br>
> <a href="http://journals.aps.org/prl/edannounce/PhysRevLett.111.180001" target="_blank">http://journals.aps.org/prl/edannounce/PhysRevLett.111.180001</a><br>
><br>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
> Report of Referee A -- LT14132/Parno<br>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
><br>
> This manuscript reports new results on the double-spin asymmetry<br>
> $A_1^n$ in deep inelastic electron-neutron scattering. The<br>
> introduction nicely summarizes various models for the structure of the<br>
> neutron and the expected asymmetry behavior expected for each,<br>
> thereby enabling a non-specialist to assess the impact of the<br>
> measurements. The manuscript contains a thorough summary of the<br>
> techniques utilized, as well as a discussion of the comparisons of the<br>
> various models to the data. Goals for upcoming experiments of a<br>
> similar nature are also discussed.<br>
><br>
> I believe that this manuscript satisfies the criteria for a Physical<br>
> Review Letter and I recommend that it be accepted.<br>
><br>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
> Report of Referee B -- LT14132/Parno<br>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
><br>
> See Attachment: lt14132_report_1_b.pdf<br>
><br>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
> Report of Referee C -- LT14132/Parno<br>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
><br>
> This manuscript reports results and analysis of an experiment done in<br>
> 2009 at the Jefferson Lab. The apparatus included an open-geometry<br>
> spectrometer deployed at a large scattering angle and a polarized<br>
> ${\rm ^3He}$ target allowing the extraction of the polarized structure<br>
> function of the neutron. Such data are needed, in combination with<br>
> data on polarized proton targets to determine the spin-dependent<br>
> parton densities of the up and down quarks of the nucleons.<br>
><br>
> There are two aspects to this manuscript: the experiment and the<br>
> interpretation. In this evaluation, I will treat each in turn. The<br>
> text begins with a good introduction to the subject matter over the<br>
> first two paragraphs, then it switches to a fairly lengthy discourse<br>
> on phenomenological models extending over three paragraphs, before<br>
> returning in the last paragraph of the second column of page 2 to an<br>
> essential description of the experiment and its results.<br>
><br>
> The data are valuable since they provide 6 data points on $A_1^{n}$ in<br>
> the range 0.28 $< x <$ 0.55, consistent with previous measurements.<br>
> However, these new data come with relatively large uncertainties, as<br>
> seen in Table 1 and Fig. 1 of the paper. As such, in and of<br>
> themselves, the data do not allow significant conclusions. In<br>
> particular, based on the size of the uncertainties in Table 1, this<br>
> reader does not agree with the claim by the authors in their Abstract<br>
> that ``the data corroborate a previous observation of a zero crossing<br>
> near $x = 0.5$".<br>
><br>
> More than just new data in an extended range of $x$, a Physical Review<br>
> Letter should include a definitive result with impact. This proposed<br>
> letter does not.<br>
><br>
> The discourse on phenomenological models on the page 2 and the<br>
> comments toward the end of page 4 on distinguishing among models do<br>
> not strengthen the manuscript. There is a statement that the data<br>
> disfavor leading-order perturbative quantum chromodynamics without<br>
> orbital angular momentum (OAM). As far as I can tell, this statement<br>
> is based on the fact that the Avakian et al. curves in Figs 1 and 2<br>
> (bottom) agree much better with the data than some of the other curves<br>
> such as the LSS curve. However, the reader is left wondering whether<br>
> the presence of OAM is responsible for this improvement or whether<br>
> there are other differences between those models that account for the<br>
> difference. In addition, it is unclear why the authors devote so much<br>
> attention to the DSE approach (long paragraph in the second column of<br>
> page 2). The DSE model makes statements about the point $x = 1$<br>
> whereas the data in the experiment do not extend above $x = 0.6$.<br>
><br>
> Overall, the manuscript does not meet the criteria for Physical Review<br>
> Letters. The experiment and the data appear solid, so I would<br>
> recommend publication in Physical Review C after some revisions of the<br>
> interpretation of the data.<br>
><br>
<br><br>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
d2n-analysis-talk mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:d2n-analysis-talk@jlab.org">d2n-analysis-talk@jlab.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/d2n-analysis-talk" target="_blank">https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/d2n-analysis-talk</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr"> Matthew Posik<br><div> Postdoctoral Fellow<br></div><div><br></div><div> Temple University </div><div> Department of Physics</div><div> Barton Hall <br></div><div> 1900 North 13th Street</div><div> Philadelphia, PA 19122</div><div> USA</div><div><br></div><div> TU Office: Barton Hall, A319</div><br></div>
</div>