[Mott] [EXTERNAL] Your_manuscript CP10611 Grames

[Xavier Roca Maza]

Great!
Xavi

El vie., 13 mar. 2020 19:22, Matthew Poelker <poelker at jlab.org> escribió:

> Excellent news, congratulations
> Matt
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Mott <mott-bounces at jlab.org> on behalf of Joe Grames <
> grames at jlab.org>
> *Sent:* Friday, March 13, 2020 2:18 PM
> *To:* mott at jlab.org <mott at jlab.org>
> *Subject:* [Mott] Fw: [EXTERNAL] Your_manuscript CP10611 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).]
> _______________________________________________
> Mott mailing list
> Mott at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/mott
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/mott/attachments/20200313/9b720bc5/attachment.html>