<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<style type="text/css" style="display:none;"> P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;} </style>
</head>
<body dir="ltr">
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
Hi Mott Team,</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
In these days of daily dismal new stories, here's a nice bright kernel of light for your weekends, from
<b><i>the</i></b> 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.</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
Hoping you are all feeling well,</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
Joe</div>
<div><font size="2"><span style="font-size:11pt;">
<div class="PlainText">________________________________________<br>
From: prc@aps.org <prc@aps.org><br>
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2020 2:05 PM<br>
To: Joe Grames<br>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Your_manuscript CP10611 Grames<br>
<br>
Re: CP10611<br>
High precision 5 MeV Mott polarimeter<br>
by J. M. Grames, C. K. Sinclair, M. Poelker, et al.<br>
<br>
Dear Dr. Grames,<br>
<br>
The above manuscript has been reviewed by one of our referees.<br>
Comments from the report appear below.<br>
<br>
These comments suggest that specific revisions of your manuscript are<br>
in order. When you resubmit your manuscript, please include a summary<br>
of the changes made and a succinct response to all recommendations or<br>
criticisms contained in the report.<br>
<br>
Yours sincerely,<br>
<br>
Christopher Wesselborg<br>
Managing Editor<br>
Physical Review C<br>
Email: prc@aps.org<br>
<a href="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=">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=</a><br>
<br>
==================================<br>
In celebration of the 50th Anniversary of Physical Review A, B, C,<br>
and D, APS is offering 50% off open access article publication<br>
charges (APCs) in all hybrid journals for papers submitted during the<br>
2020 calendar year. Additionally, Physical Review Research will<br>
continue to waive APCs through June 30, 2020. For details about APC<br>
pricing, see <a href="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=">
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=</a> .<br>
<br>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
Report of the Referee -- CP10611/Grames<br>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
The manuscript entitled "A High Precision 5 MeV Mott Polarimeter" by<br>
J. M. Grames et al. reports on the design and performance of a Mott<br>
polarimeter at JLab. This is a very well-written manuscript that makes<br>
a convincing case that an accuracy of below 1% is achievable for Mott<br>
polarimetry. All in all, this is an impressive result, which is of<br>
general interest to the specialist in the field and is worthy of<br>
publication in the Physics Review after considering the following<br>
comments:<br>
<br>
1. The authors should consider including a sentence that states the<br>
systematic uncertainty of 0.6% in the abstract. The reader should not<br>
have to wait until Section 11 to see that number.<br>
<br>
2. You write in the abstract that "A simultaneous high-precision<br>
measurement of the beam polarization with a different polarimeter,<br>
..." Can you be more specific and name that other polarimeter?<br>
<br>
3. In the same spirit of being more precise, can you provide a number<br>
for the energy resolution of typical detectors on page 3, where you<br>
write "particularly when the energy resolution of typical detectors is<br>
included."<br>
<br>
4. How large is the contribution from inelastic scattering in the<br>
target foil which "makes a negligible contribution" on page 3?<br>
<br>
5. On page 4 you write "Given the dependence of the leading order<br>
radiative corrections on energy, this result provides strong<br>
circumstantial support that the net effect of these corrections<br>
largely cancels, as theoretically anticipated." Can you provide a<br>
reference for the theoretical anticipation?<br>
<br>
6. Figure 1 has legends that state "calc. for P = ", while the<br>
captions states, those calculations are fits. What is true? Please<br>
clarify.<br>
<br>
7. It is not clear why Figure 2, which appears in Ref T-1, is copied<br>
over to your manuscript. Is it really necessary to reprint that<br>
figure?<br>
<br>
8. Can you use the same (strong) font in Figures 3 & 4, as you use in<br>
Figure 5? The labels on the are hard to read in Figures 3 & 4.<br>
<br>
9. It appears that you need to add a "-" sign on page 18, 4 lines<br>
above Figure 11. Should it state "A "good" elastic scattering event<br>
has been determined to lie between -0.5sigma to +2sigma".<br>
<br>
10. You use a Gaussian fit on the spectrum shown in Figure 12. This is<br>
clearly not accurate, since the left side of the peak is skewed. The<br>
spectrum may be better represented by a Gaussian convolved with an<br>
Erfc. How would that improve your results?<br>
<br>
11. On page 22, you write "We measured the scattering asymmetry as a<br>
function of beam position on the 1 um and 0.225 um". Do you actually<br>
mean 1 um or 1.0 um or 1.00 um or 1.000 um? What is the precision on<br>
that number?<br>
<br>
12. In Figures 14 & 16 you show a dotted band over the entire x-range,<br>
while in Figure 15, only over a limited range. You do not state in the<br>
captions, what it means, and why it only covers a portion of the graph<br>
in Figure 15. I could guess, but I should not have to. Please fix.<br>
<br>
13. On page 31, 3rd line, there is problem with a symbol that is<br>
displayed as a square. Please fix.<br>
<br>
14. You often use the symbol "~" in the text probably meaning to<br>
represent "approximately". However, this is confusing and incorrect.<br>
The mathematical symbol "~" means "similar" and not "approximate".<br>
Please check and fix. You also use the symbol "<" outside of a<br>
mathematical formula. This should be avoided in formal text if<br>
possible, and replaced with appropriate text.<br>
<br>
<br>
[Editorial Office remark: Please replace "$\sim$" with "$\approx$" to<br>
denote numerical proximity (to distinguish from functional<br>
similarity).]<br>
</div>
</span></font></div>
</body>
</html>