[Mott] Fw: [EXTERNAL] Your_manuscript CP10611 Grames

[Joe Grames]

Hi Mott Team,

In these days of daily dismal new stories, here's a nice bright kernel of light for your weekends, from the Referee, notably I don't see an "A" or "B".   At first glance all of the comments are either trivial or pretty straight forward.   I'll work with Charlie and reach out as needed to provide the responses and updated draft, and circulate for comment before resubmission.

Hoping you are all feeling well,
Joe
________________________________________
From: prc at aps.org <prc at aps.org>
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2020 2:05 PM
To: Joe Grames
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Your_manuscript CP10611 Grames

Re: CP10611
    High precision 5 MeV Mott polarimeter
    by J. M. Grames, C. K. Sinclair, M. Poelker, et al.

Dear Dr. Grames,

The above manuscript has been reviewed by one of our referees.
Comments from the report appear below.

These comments suggest that specific revisions of your manuscript are
in order. When you resubmit your manuscript, please include a summary
of the changes made and a succinct response to all recommendations or
criticisms contained in the report.

Yours sincerely,

Christopher Wesselborg
Managing Editor
Physical Review C
Email: prc at aps.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__journals.aps.org_prc_&d=DwICAg&c=CJqEzB1piLOyyvZjb8YUQw&r=0OMOtlswNxL2CZUVOc0o6g&m=XY2_aTxev4yO7omN7QLu0iufUyvymrRzv2hApYodkiI&s=TXipN2SyA25rjCIzpvQzACrLaXhftBKg0Fj7iupe_GM&e=

==================================
In celebration of the 50th Anniversary of Physical Review A, B, C,
and D, APS is offering 50% off open access article publication
charges (APCs) in all hybrid journals for papers submitted during the
2020 calendar year. Additionally, Physical Review Research will
continue to waive APCs through June 30, 2020. For details about APC
pricing, see https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__journals.aps.org_authors_apcs&d=DwICAg&c=CJqEzB1piLOyyvZjb8YUQw&r=0OMOtlswNxL2CZUVOc0o6g&m=XY2_aTxev4yO7omN7QLu0iufUyvymrRzv2hApYodkiI&s=HYFNVhuDwaHMNgwsK6kfED-Z9SjbwALQtpyOrrt5wQA&e= .

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Report of the Referee -- CP10611/Grames
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The manuscript entitled "A High Precision 5 MeV Mott Polarimeter" by
J. M. Grames et al. reports on the design and performance of a Mott
polarimeter at JLab. This is a very well-written manuscript that makes
a convincing case that an accuracy of below 1% is achievable for Mott
polarimetry. All in all, this is an impressive result, which is of
general interest to the specialist in the field and is worthy of
publication in the Physics Review after considering the following
comments:

1. The authors should consider including a sentence that states the
systematic uncertainty of 0.6% in the abstract. The reader should not
have to wait until Section 11 to see that number.

2. You write in the abstract that "A simultaneous high-precision
measurement of the beam polarization with a different polarimeter,
..." Can you be more specific and name that other polarimeter?

3. In the same spirit of being more precise, can you provide a number
for the energy resolution of typical detectors on page 3, where you
write "particularly when the energy resolution of typical detectors is
included."

4. How large is the contribution from inelastic scattering in the
target foil which "makes a negligible contribution" on page 3?

5. On page 4 you write "Given the dependence of the leading order
radiative corrections on energy, this result provides strong
circumstantial support that the net effect of these corrections
largely cancels, as theoretically anticipated." Can you provide a
reference for the theoretical anticipation?

6. Figure 1 has legends that state "calc. for P = ", while the
captions states, those calculations are fits. What is true? Please
clarify.

7. It is not clear why Figure 2, which appears in Ref T-1, is copied
over to your manuscript. Is it really necessary to reprint that
figure?

8. Can you use the same (strong) font in Figures 3 & 4, as you use in
Figure 5? The labels on the are hard to read in Figures 3 & 4.

9. It appears that you need to add a "-" sign on page 18, 4 lines
above Figure 11. Should it state "A "good" elastic scattering event
has been determined to lie between -0.5sigma to +2sigma".

10. You use a Gaussian fit on the spectrum shown in Figure 12. This is
clearly not accurate, since the left side of the peak is skewed. The
spectrum may be better represented by a Gaussian convolved with an
Erfc. How would that improve your results?

11. On page 22, you write "We measured the scattering asymmetry as a
function of beam position on the 1 um and 0.225 um". Do you actually
mean 1 um or 1.0 um or 1.00 um or 1.000 um? What is the precision on
that number?

12. In Figures 14 & 16 you show a dotted band over the entire x-range,
while in Figure 15, only over a limited range. You do not state in the
captions, what it means, and why it only covers a portion of the graph
in Figure 15. I could guess, but I should not have to. Please fix.

13. On page 31, 3rd line, there is problem with a symbol that is
displayed as a square. Please fix.

14. You often use the symbol "~" in the text probably meaning to
represent "approximately". However, this is confusing and incorrect.
The mathematical symbol "~" means "similar" and not "approximate".
Please check and fix. You also use the symbol "<" outside of a
mathematical formula. This should be avoided in formal text if
possible, and replaced with appropriate text.


[Editorial Office remark: Please replace "$\sim$" with "$\approx$" to
denote numerical proximity (to distinguish from functional
similarity).]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/mott/attachments/20200313/18ccf12d/attachment.html>