[Pvdis] PVDIS manuscript update

[Xiaochao Zheng]

Dear All:

Below please find the email from Nature about our PVDIS manuscript.  Currently a couple of us are working on improving the grammar. And we plan to submit a revised version early next week.

Cheers.

Xiaochao

PS We presented our result at a JLab seminar on Friday, April 13th, 2012. Friday the 13th seems to be a lucky day!


13th December 2013

Dear Dr Zheng

Your revised manuscript entitled "New Measurement of Parity
Violation in Electron-Quark Scattering" has now been seen by our
referees, and in the light of their advice (enclosed below) we
are now ready to proceed with publication. Unfortunately,
however, there are some stylistic problems with your manuscript
pdf that prevent us from doing so. We would therefore be grateful
if you could attend to the following problems as soon as
possible:

1) The bold font summary paragraph is missing. Please reinstate
it, ensuring that it is fully referenced (I should stress that
references in the summary paragraph are mandatory).

2) The referencing throughout the paper will need to be adjusted
following from point 1).

3) The manuscript needs to be laid out in draft style - i.e. in
single columns per page and double-spaced throughout.

4) The legend of Figure 1 has been cut off prematurely.


Please also take this opportunity to improve the grammar, as
requested by referee 3.

Please email the corrected pdf to Anastasia Panoutsou
(a.panoutsou at nature.com).

We look forward to hearing from you soon.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Karen Howell
Senior Editor


Referees' comments:

Referee #1 (Remarks to the Author):

Technically, the paper is sound, though I am not really in
agreement with authors on the evaluation of the theoretical
uncertainties regarding higher twist effects, since I do not
trust these calculations and believe that they have to be
measured experimentally.

On the other hand, I do not see any point in blocking the
publication if you would like to proceed.


Referee #2 (Remarks to the Author):

No further comments


Referee #3 (Remarks to the Author):

The results are new and interesting. The conclusions appear
valid but somewhat
difficult for inexperienced readers. I do think that the article
needs a careful editing
by both an experienced scientific editor and perhaps one or more
of the authors.
The language used is somewhat coarse and misleading.

For example, on page 2 the authors write:

These results are the first evidence at more than the 95%
confidence level that the C2q's are non-zero as predicted by the
electroweak theory of particle physics, which led to new
constraints on interactions beyond the Standard Model,
particularly on those due to reversing the quark chirality.

That sentence should be rewritten as (for example):

These results are the first evidence, at more than the 95%
confidence level, that the C2q's are non-zero as predicted by
electroweak particle physics theory. They lead to constraints on
new interactions, beyond the Standard Model, that violate parity.

There are many other places where such simple rewriting would
clarify the article and make it more comprehensible.

If the writing is improved, I think the novelty of the result and
newsworthy implications for future experiments at JLAB would
warrant publication in Nature.




This email has been sent through the NPG Manuscript Tracking System NY-610A-NPG&MTS

Confidentiality Statement:

This e-mail is confidential and subject to copyright. Any unauthorised use or disclosure of its contents is prohibited. If you have received this email in error please notify our Manuscript Tracking System Helpdesk team at http://npgapps.custhelp.com/app/ask.

Details of the confidentiality and pre-publicity policy may be found here http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/confidentiality.html

Privacy Policy | Update Profile