[Primexd] Responses to Reviewer Comments and Updated Paper Draft

[Drew Smith]

Hi Haiyan,

Thanks for the quick response, and I will revise the text regarding the systematic difference as you suggested.

Best,
Drew

From: Haiyan Gao <haiyan.gao at duke.edu>
Date: Tuesday, July 15, 2025 at 11:34 AM
To: Drew Smith <andrsmit at jlab.org>, Alexander Somov via Primexd <primexd at jlab.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Responses to Reviewer Comments and Updated Paper Draft
Hello Drew:

I looked at all the materials you sent, and I think you did a great job in both updating the manuscript and in responding to the referees. I agree with Sasha to remove the part of the PS acceptance in the response.

I have one suggest regarding the systematic difference between the data and the theory starting 9 GeV. Below is what you have:
“The data exhibit a slightly different trend with respect to
the NLO calculation below and above 9 GeV. This trend
may indicate a systematic effect, but this article does not
address its possible origin.”

I suggest the following text:
While the agreement between the data and the NLO calculation is good in general considering the overall experimental uncertainties, we note a slightly different trend between the two above 9 GeV. This trend
may indicate a systematic effect that requires further study.

Regarding your three points below:


  1.  The current version reads fine.
  2.  Addressed above
  3.  This is fine.


Best, Haiyan
***********************************************
Haiyan Gao
Henry W. Newson Distinguished Professor of Physics
Department of Physics
French Family Science Center 2313
Duke University
Durham, NC 27708
Email: hgao at duke.edu<mailto:hgao at duke.edu>
Phone: 919-660-2622
www.tunl.duke.edu/~mep<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.tunl.duke.edu_-7Emep&d=DwMGaQ&c=CJqEzB1piLOyyvZjb8YUQw&r=9Bx2ys-Dpy_k2DnraD9K6s7cenenqrHbpbggMd6BjQk&m=QtOxMaTmHQttYCBoMLvRynE6K90sbT2yvpp0Wtjn-aLlOAs9XCOOtLcMvuSvaJmz&s=UWYZp84dm6OgTh2CjWMrlDyUlwxnf5WpLUoarHdzgm0&e=>
***********************************************



From: Primexd <primexd-bounces at jlab.org> on behalf of Drew Smith via Primexd <primexd at jlab.org>
Date: Tuesday, July 15, 2025 at 11:02 AM
To: Alexander Somov via Primexd <primexd at jlab.org>
Subject: Re: [Primexd] Responses to Reviewer Comments and Updated Paper Draft
Hi Everyone,

I didn’t properly review the document I sent in the last email. Please find attached to this email the corrected version of the updated paper draft and the difference between the old and new versions for your review.

Moreover, after speaking with Sasha, we believe it may be best to just omit the discussion related to the PS acceptance shape peaking at 9 GeV that I included in my response to the reviewer. The first paragraph for that response is probably enough on its own, as the reviewer was not looking for a specific explanation.

Best,
Drew


From: Primexd <primexd-bounces at jlab.org> on behalf of Drew Smith via Primexd <primexd at jlab.org>
Date: Tuesday, July 15, 2025 at 10:45 AM
To: Alexander Somov via Primexd <primexd at jlab.org>
Subject: [Primexd] Responses to Reviewer Comments and Updated Paper Draft
Dear All,

I attached to this email a few documents for your review:

  *   ‘ReviewerComments.pdf’ – A document listing all comments provided by the reviewers and suggested responses.
  *   ‘UpdatedManuscript.pdf’ – As the title suggests, the updated draft of the paper in two column format.
  *   ‘Difference.pdf’ – A pdf showing the edits made since the initial submission. Please ignore the broken references to figures and citations in this document. The additions are highlighted in blue, and the omissions are in red with a strikethrough.

A few specific places I want to bring your attention to:

  1.  With the added information about the flux measurement from the PS and the TAC run for the acceptance determination, I wonder if the flow of the first two paragraphs is a bit awkward. Specifically, the last sentence of the second paragraph abruptly changes the focus back from the calibration (TAC) runs, and back to the normal experimental conditions. Please let me know if you have suggestions for improvement, or are satisfied with the current iteration.
  2.  In the response to Reviewer #2’s comment about addressing the different observed trend in the cross-section measurement at 9GeV with respect to the NLO calculation (the final comment in the document), I included a plot of the PS acceptance and pointed out that the peak of this triangular shape coincides with this observed effect, and I mentioned that the estimated uncertainties on the PS acceptance shape within this region were slightly enhanced compared to lower energies. I did not include this into the text of the paper, however, as the connection is only speculative. I’m not sure if it is worth including the PS acceptance plot in this response, as it could possibly bring up more questions.
  3.  The final question from reviewer #1 was whether the systematic uncertainties for this measurement matched the expectations for PrimEx-eta. I provided a direct response to their question, but I did not edit the conclusion of the paper itself to provide more details on this subject. If anyone has a specific suggestion for how that could be addressed in the paper, please let me know. Otherwise, I don’t think It’s absolutely necessary to include.

Since these revisions are mostly based on our discussion at last week’s primex meeting, and not everyone is subscribed to the gluex-compton google group, I will wait to reach a consensus within this smaller group before sending the updated responses to the latter.

Best Regards,
Drew
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/primexd/attachments/20250715/af186731/attachment-0001.htm>